Origins of the Vedic Religion

And
Indus-Ghaggar Civilisation
By

Sanjay Sonawani
 Preface

Superficially, it may appear that the Aryan or Indo-European language speaker’s migration
theory, whether correct or incorrect, is a serious attempt to understand our roots. We also can
expect from such attempts that they are not prejudiced and marred with hidden agenda to prove
some group of the people, speaking certain proto-languages, were superior over others. However,
if we look at the history of last 200 years on this ever-boiling ‘homeland’ issue, we will
eventually come to the conclusion that the motives of all the sides of this debate are racially and
hence, politically motivated. The racial aspects those were prominent during the 19th century and
early 20th century, now are changed to PIE language origins and the subsequent dispersals of its
speakers, but underlying meaning clearly seems to be unchanged. The issue of Proto-Indo-
European’s (PIE) homeland has been controversial since beginning, with no consensus on any as
it simply is based on the artificial reconstruction of the so called IE languages.

It is not that all scholars agree with the linguistic reconstruction theories. Shaffer et al observed,
“Historical linguistic scholars still assiduously attempting to reconstruct Proto-Indo-European
language and attempting to link that language to a specific homeland, in order to define
population migration away from the seminal geographical base.” 1

The problem with the scholars seems to be they have preconceived the necessity of the “single
location origin” and have been building their theories eversince. To anyhow find the ‘original
homeland’ of the PIE language speakers thus became basis of their quest to solve the assumed
linguistic mysteries. Several original homelands have been proposed, migration maps have been
drawn, and yet there is no agreement because they have not taken into the consideration that to
cause ‘Net of the Languages’ original homeland of any particular people and their dispersals
were not required. I have focused on this issue and after giving due consideration to the present
homeland theories, have challenged “Single Location Origin” theories, based on the pre-history
of the humanities and the languages.

Let us not forget that the history of languages begins minimum of 70,000 years ago. It is not as
young as PIE theorists tend to believe. The history of human settlements, too, goes back many
millenniums prior to the assumed dates of so called migrations of PIE language speakers. For
history of the so called PIE languages, we cannot limit our search just as back as 2,000 BC to
7,000 BC but we need to go beyond that to the era when the faculty of the languages emerged in
the remote ancestor of the modern human being. For millenniums, the ancestors, while on
constant move in search of the food, with independent innovations and constant interactions,
painfully, have developed the basic structures of the languages. Languages, even proto, were not
independent, isolated innovations. Human being, with the invention of the agriculture, started
settling down about 15,000 BC to 10,000 BC. Then, onwards, the people mostly have
independently developed their languages and cultures, based on the accumulated wealth from the
past, in different regions, wherever they had settled. The pastoral nomadic life, too, the scholars
forget, was limited to the known territories, unless, some drastic circumstances forced some
tribe/s to look for new habitats. Foragers long since had limited their roaming in the known
territories, interacting with the almost same tribes, either as enemies or as friends. The roaming
was intelligent and not aimless. He communicated, exchanged and learnt the innovations,
whether linguistic or technologicsl. Rather, most of the settlements occurred in the known
regions thus creating a net of the languages and cultures within the horizons of the earlier known
regions. During this course inter-breeding within the tribes coming across most frequently were
obvious. Thus using archeo-genetics to prove the “expansions” of some groups of the people
occurred about 10,000 to 14,000 years ago, also cannot become the foundation of
expansion/migration theories as well. The genetics, too, it would appear, to have been used to
prove expansionist theories, but not to any avail.

If agreed to their suppositions, no matter which data they use to prove their theories, the vital
question remains unanswered that why as yet they are unable to find the original homeland?
Why so heated debates, sometimes reaching to undignified levels? In fact, Biblically motivated,
supremacist European scholars, in an attempt to search their own idenitity in the hypothetical
ancestors, located at some imaginary place, speaking the same language in its earliest form and
their invasions/migrations to cause cultural and language spread after subjugating the natives,
have given birth to this unending crazy quest of the original homeland!

Recently, taking a clue from the possible repercussions of the theory, Indian Vedicists, too, came
forward with a big claim that India was the homeland of the Vedic Aryans. They do not stop
here. They claim that the IE languages (and culture) did spread to the West with their outward
movements! We can call this a kind of supremacist euphoric and half-baked counter attack on
the European theorists of the same genre!

With the same purpose, while trying to prove the progenitors of the cultures across the regions
wherever so called IE languages are spoken; these so called indigenous Aryan theorists have
staked the big claim on IGC (Indus-Ghaggar Civilization) as well.2 Vedicists may not be far
advanced in their own remote culture, but, it clearly seems, they are well advanced in their
spurious attempts to steal heritages of the others!

The claims from both the sides, unbiased being a few, no matter how scholarly they twist the
facts, no matter how they misinterpret the same evidence deriving opposite meanings sometimes,
have only a problem that they are heavily influenced by the misconception of the single location
origin. Linguistic science is often called as pseudo-science because it does not work like a
mathematical model. It has lots of parametres as to how it would evolve and what many other
unpredictable factors would affect its course.
Also, the debate overwhelmingly is centered on the horse-chariots, being a major basis of the
debate, claimed to be an invention of PIE people. The migration route maps are drawn on that
hypothesis based on early and late findings. Using the same data, surprisingly, indigenous Aryan
theorists are now claiming that Vedic Aryans did not know spoke wheeled chariots, rather by
‘Ratha’, they could have been referring to wagons with solid wheels!3 The sole objective behind
this somersault is to stretch back the timeline of the Rig Veda, pre-Harappan, to prove migrations
of indigenous Vedic Aryans to adjust timeframes of other rich civilization, including IGC, and
stake a claim on them as their authors.4 Otherwise, there cannot be any explanation to why the
Vedicist scholars, previously waging a war to prove that IGC knew the spoke wheels and that
horse too, was known to them, should change dramatically their stance? Similarly, we find how
the geological explorations conducted at the Ghaggar channels and their findings have grossly
been either neglected or shrewdly misrepresented to claim Ghaggar being lost river Saraswati of
Rig Veda. This is the ridiculous way our modern Vedicist scholars are overworking, but not
scientifically and honestly!
I have seriously challenged single location origin theories of languages, with new scientific proof
in support, which clearly indicates that they do not fit into the picture of the history of
humanities. Though the invasionists or migrationists have been claiming the Indo-European
movement to India which, they assert, caused substantial impact on the Indian civilisation and
languages, there simply are no archeological or literary proof to support such movements.

Kenoyer remarks from the archeological evidence that the genetic data derived from the burials
of early and let Harappa indicates very limited biological discontinuities and can be attributed to
the movement of the traders travelling from Iranian plateau and Indus Settlements. Such trade
interactions are recorded from the earliest Neolithic period (+7,000 BC) through Harappan
period. It does not at all indicate massive movement of the people. Scull measurement data, too,
indicates that the burials of the Harappan period, too, have closest biological affinity with those
of the late Harappan period. The archaeologists confirm, from the beads found in a bead pot in
1996, the technological innovations and change in trade networks and socioeconomic hierarchies
in the late Harappan period. The glass industry was becoming prominent in this era (1,900 and
1,700 BC). There is conclusive proof that during this era, there was no interaction of Indus-
Ghaggar people with Mesopotamia and Egypt, may be the trade with these civilisations had
come to a halt because of the political upheavals. But the agreement is the Indus glass
technology was an indigenous development. From the beads made of agate in late Harappan
period till the early historic sites of Gangetic plains, it is suggested that this raw material (agate)
could have been sourced from Central Deccan plateau or the Vindhya Mountain, thus suggesting
a wider trade network within the subcontinent. In short, the continuity in the basic features of
architectural traditions as well as in many technologies has been proven. The discontinuities
reported by the archaeologists are the use of seals, weights and writing which only prove the
changes in key technological and cultural features that were associated with the early Harappan
period. Also, the biological evidence from Harappa does not indicate a significant change in
population. 5

Senior archaeologist, B.B. Lal, who earlier was in favour of the Migration Theory, later changed
his stance and started propagating the Indigenous Aryan Theory using the same proofs, though
with some misinterpretations, that there was never any massive movement in India.6 Jim G.
Shaffer and Diane A Lichtenstein, too, are not in favor of migration and call it a ‘myth’.7 Yes, we
have to agree, in the absence of any archeological evidence, that there was no migration to India
of so-called PIE speakers. But on the same grounds, with utmost certainty, we can state that there
was no migration to the west from India as well! The way AIT/AMT theory is loaded with
serious faults, Out of India theory too is not an exception, rather is more idiocratic!

Then, naturally, few questions will be raised, such as, where Rig Veda was composed? What
relation they had with IGC or rather whether the culture reflected in Rig Veda can be compared
with the culture of IGC? Can Rig Veda be pre-Harappan as some scholars tend to believe? Were
the composers of Rig Veda part of IGC or was it composed elsewhere? If Rig Veda was
composed elsewhere, how come that the Vedic religion found space in northern India, in the
absence of migrating hoards of Aryans or branch of Indo-Iranians? Is the Ghaggar river Rig
Vedic Saraswati? What relationship, geographical, linguistic as well religious, we can notice
between Rig Veda and Avesta? And finally, were the Vedic Aryans indigenous? Well, I have
tried to answer these and related questions in this book, as diligently as possible, based on the
available proof and facts.

This book is not aimed at creating any controversy, but to bring reality to the notice of the
readers and how the debate of origin has been fought ceaselessly to just prove a hypothesis
which has no supportive strong evidence. Out of India or from Eurasia to India…both the
theories have their vital shortcomings and sometimes loaded with deliberate misinterpretations
which have made the comparatively simple issue very complicated. From central to south Asia,
various civilisations have evolved, prospered till the time was favorable and collapsed because of
the technological shifts, climate changes, political upheavals or cultural revolutions. “It is into
the cultural area of Greater Iran that the mobile pastoralist speakers of early Indo-Iranian and
Indo-Aryan entered. The sudden decline of all cultures of the area, from Mesopotamia to the
Indus and from Bactria to Bahrain and Oman, at the beginning of the second millennium is
suggestive, but it cannot simply be explained by an "invasion of Aryan hordes”. The situations in
all areas concerned are to disparate and they also are geographically too distant (e.g. in Oman)
as to allow such a simple, mono-causal explanation." 8 Thus states Michael Witzel. It will
indicate that the migrationist scholars, too, are hesitant to attribute fall of the civilisations to the
migrating nomadic, comparatively less civilized people. Rather, I have shown with the
archeological proofs that BMAC culture was contemporary to the Zoroaster and composers of
the Rig Veda. They weren’t new foreign cultural elements encroaching on an established
civilisation but apparently were contemporary to it. They spoke the same dialects with regional
variances and by and large its descendent languages are still spoken in these regions. There was
no need of so called Proto-Indo-European speaker’s migrations to linguistically and culturally
influence the already established civilisations. Rather, the development of the languages
becomes complex and yet polished in the settled societies for want of their over grown socio
commercial needs, rather than in nomadic society for their limited needs of expressions.
However, we can clearly see that the homeland quest was emerged out of racial egotisms.
Trautmann had rightly remarked, “This is the theory that Indian civilization was formed by a big
bang, caused by the light-skinned, Aryan, civilized invaders over dark skinned savage aboriginal
Indians, and the formation of the caste system which bound two in a single society, at once
mixed and segregated. If this theory were true, there aught to be evidence in the earliest Vedic
texts.” 9 However, we shall see further in the book that there was no migration of Indo-Europeans
in India or out of India, but what came to India was Vedic religion by way of the missionary
activities.

Vedicist scholars have fallen to the supremacist notions of the European scholars this is why
they too have jumped into the band-wagon of the homeland issue, just to prove their superiority
over large Indian masses and even over the westerners! The identity crisis of the Vedicists is thus
has become a serious issue. While searching for their roots, Vedicists are attempting to
discredit non-Vedic masses from their glorious heritage on flimsy and sometimes
fabricated grounds. Suct attempts demands serious condemnation!

However, we can see from the opinions of various scholars that the migrations of the people
from any direction are gradually being doubted, but still due to the psychological rigidity they
possess, they do not want to abandon the outdated and unproven theory. This is why, though
their observations and findings are almost correct, their conclusions and counter suggestions and
unending arguments to find alternative explanations have become the main hurdle in concluding
Aryan or PIE language controversy!

The supremacist views of the scholars thus have marred the spirit of honest cultural debate and
search of the roots of civilisations. With all due respect to the scholars of the present and past, I
have tried to throw light on the stark realities of the civilisations debated over so far to present
new insights about our roots.

-Sanjay Sonawani

References and notes

1. “South Asian Archeology and the Myth of Indo-Aryan Invasions” by Jim G. Shaffer and
Diane A. Lichtenstein in “The Indo-Aryan Controversy: Evidence and Inference in Indian
History”, edited by Edwin Bryant, Laurie Patton, Pub. Routledge, 2005, page 93.

2. For this see “Update on the Aryan Invasion Debate” by Koenraad Elst, Aditya Prakashan,
New Delhi, 1999. Also see “Rigveda: A Historical Analysis” by Shrikant G. Talageri, Aditya
Prakashan, 2000 and “The Rigveda and the Avesta: The final Evidence” by same author, Aditya
Prakashan, 2008.

3. “A Reply to Michael Witzel’s ‘Ein Fremdling im Rgveda’”, by Vishal Agarwal, published

online on 11 August 2003. You will find many interesting aspects of the Vedicist views those
even deny Vedic Aryans during Satapatha Brahmana era knew iron. The magical play with the
term “syamaayasa”, (black metal, i.e. Iron.) has been made here to discard Witzel’s assumption
that the Satapatha Brahmana being creation of the full-blown iron age. It is clear Agarwal wants
to stretch back the period of this text to bronze age.

4. For example see, “Update on the Aryan Invasion Debate” by Koenraad Elst, Aditya
Prakashan, New Delhi, 1999

5. “Culture changes during the Late Harappan period at Harappa: new insights on Vedic Aryan
issue”, by Jonathan Mark Kenoyer in “The Indo-Aryan Controversy: Evidence and Inference in
Indian History”, edited by Edwin Bryant, Laurie Patton, Pub. Routledge, 2005, page 31-40.

6. “Aryan Invasion of India- Perpetuation of a myth” by B. B. Lal, in “The Indo-Aryan

Controversy: Evidence and Inference in Indian History”, edited by Edwin Bryant, Laurie Patton,
Pub. Routledge, 2005, page 50-72.

7. “South Asian Archeology and the Myth of Indo-Aryan Invasions” by Jim G. Shaffer and
Diane A. Lichtenstein in “The Indo-Aryan Controversy: Evidence and Inference in Indian
History”, edited by Edwin Bryant, Laurie Patton, Pub. Routledge, 2005.

8. “The home of the Aryans” by Michael Witzel, available on line on

http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~witzel/AryanHome.pdf, page 8.

9. ‘The Aryan Debate’ by Thomas R. Trautmann, pub.: Oxford University Press, 2005, p. 100.
 Chapter 1

ARYAN MIGRATION ISSUE: A CRITIQUE

Using the term ‘Arya’ as a race has proven the intellectual bankruptcy of 19th century racist
scholars. In fact, any discussion about this term is a waste of time. Much so because it has been a
hypothetical, fanciful and proven to be an idea dangerous to the humankind supported by no
material proof except for some wild guesswork. The term invoked racial ego in Europeans as
well as in some classes of Indian society causing sever irreparable social damage and
unnecessary social divide. Moreover, now it seems to be an intellectual entertainment for some
scholars, who engage themselves in the issue under the disguise of solving linguistic mysteries.

The term ‘Aryan’ was invented in the mid-18th century. Prior to that, the term had never been
used to refer to a race or ethnic group, which existed anywhere on the globe. Max Muller was the
first one to refer to ‘Aryans’ as a ‘race of people’. 1 Of course, he later realised the grave danger
of doing so and apologetically took back his words. He also explained that while using the word
‘Aryan’, he meant a group of languages and not the ethnic race.A Still, the harm had already been
done. B

Without getting into the detailed history of this term, we will focus on a few points, which
explain what the term ‘Aryan’ really meant in the ancient societies.

In the Rig Veda, the word ‘Arya’ appears on only 36 occasions in 34 stanzas and it is used to
address mostly to the lineage of Sudasa clan and Gods as an epithet. Moreover, in the Verse
7.33.3, the term ‘Arya’ has been used for enemy also. This only indicates that the Vedics fought
against each other too.

‘Airyana Vaeja’ in Yasna and Yasts, (Persian scriptures) is the name of a mythical or poetically
glorified land where Zarathustra was born and delivered his first sermon. In Persian scriptures, it
does not refer to people or epithet. Moreover, the term rarely appears in the Avesta. According to
Gherardo Gnoli, ‘Ariya’ was not quite a racial category. Later in Achaemenid times, ‘Ariya’ was
meant to be a cultural and religious term to evoke the kings' origin, like a title of particular
nobility. In its very restricted, exclusivist nature, the term is quite different from a racial
category. 2

The words similar to ‘Arya’, like ‘Ariya’, ‘Ire’, ‘Ariana’, ‘Aristocrat’ etc. appear in several
languages and they do not represent any race anywhere. At some places, such words represent
titles or epithet and at some places, they represent certain geographies. According to Max
Muller, the term ‘Arya’ means ‘one who ploughs or tills’ which later on came to be used as
‘Noble’, of a good family. 3

The etymology of ‘Arya’ is yet not certain. Some linguistics like Oswald Szemerény considers it
most probably being a loan word, meaning ‘kinsman, companion’ from non-Indo-European
language ‘Ugaritic’. 4

The term ‘Aryan’ came into use as a race by the politically and ideologically motivated
people to prove the supremacy of the white races over other races. The so called Aryans who
were described as ‘fair haired, light or blue eyed Nordic warriors, who tamed the horses and
invented wheel and conquered most of the Europe, Northern India and much of the Middle East
thousands of years ago, were indeed a fairy tale. More so, because no skeletal remains of that
could be identified with, such as Nordics, have ever been found so far in the vast of Indus
civilisation or Iran. Such complex is the nature of the ethnic diversity in the so-called Indo-
European language speaking regions that no material proof of the Aryan Race theory and its so
called supremacy is found. C

Though, the Aryan race theory has been abandoned, discarded by the scholars of present times,
the Indo-European Languages group theorists still continue to propose the same, carefully
replacing the term ‘race’ with ‘PIE languages group’ in their theories. Though racial elements
looks like to have been removed from the new theories of the Indo-European Language group,
the underlying intentions are the same - supremacist and racially prejudiced.

Iranian scholar Reza Zia-Ebrahimi stated, “Today, the talk of the ‘Aryan race’ in the West is
restricted to White supremacist circles in North America and neo-Nazi militants in Europe. The
very concept of ‘race’, although, it is still used in political discourses, especially, in the United
States, is scientifically bankrupt. Leading scientific associations assert that genetic variations
between human groups are so gradual that drawing lines is inevitably an arbitrary and subjective
exercise. "Indo-European" today refers to languages, not to people, let alone people supposed to
assume inherent characteristics. Even its now limited use has been questioned. According to
prominent linguists such as Merritt Ruhlen and the late Joseph Greenberg, the theory which
holds that Indo-European languages are unrelated to other language groups such as the ‘Semitic’
is overstated, if not outright fictitious.”

She adds, “Throughout the 19th century, Aryanism was wrapped into the discourse of science.
Racial anthropology came into being as a discipline claiming to classify humans into different
racial categories with immutable psychological features by measuring noses, skulls, and ears. As
we know all too well, Aryanists, in particular like Adolf Hitler, became increasingly obsessed
with the racial purity and elevated the opposition between Aryan and Semite to the level of
paradigmatic antagonism. This opened the way for the next stage: extermination. Aryanism
provided the ideological backbone for Nazi atrocities.” 5

It will be pertinent here to note that all British ethnologists of the 19th century like Herbert
Risley, Russel, Heeralal etc. have classified the Indian population in different races based on the
physical measurements of the people. Their study is held in almost a gospel like reverence even
in the present day India to make governmental and judicial decisions on socio-ethnic issues and
reservations. There has been no attempt to relook into the social and ethnic history of India from
a fresh point of the view to correct the mistakes of the past, which rather is the need of the time.

The Rig Veda or the Avesta nowhere indicates that there ever was a distinct race of the Aryan
and that it had any struggle with the Dasas, Dasyus etc. on racial account. Rather, in the
famous battle of ten kings, among the enemy of king Sudasa, five tribes bore the title
‘Aryan’ while the five other tribes did not. The Dasas and the Dasyus were no racial groups.
They were rather groups of different religious faiths. In the Rig Veda, Dasyus appear as ‘Avrata’,
which means without Vedic rites (RV 1.51.8, 9) or as Anagnitra, Ayajjyu or Ayajvan, which
means without fire sacrifice (RV 5:189:3, 1.131.44, 1.33.4). Apparently, with their religious
conversion, the Dasas, too, could become Aryas. The Rig Veda states, “Oh Vajri, though hast
made Aryas of Dasas” (RV 10.49.3). Thus, it seems that initially the Vedic society had been
welcoming the non-Vedics to the Vedic fold.

Similar terms like Dahae, Dakhyu do appear in the Avesta, too, but they connote men or
compatriots of the same society and not any different race. Zarathustra’s epithet is ‘Dakhyuma’
(temporal Lord) though his sacred land of birth is called as Airyanam Vaejo, which means in a
way the prophet was Dakhyu (Dasyu) and Airya (Arya) in same breath. People of those times
developed the designation of ‘Aryas’ to denote or express self-pride and independent religious
faiths. We may not know ever from where this term originated and how it travelled across the
regions adorning different meanings.

In the latter days, the term Dasa, Dasyu came to be used for slaves and robbers. Nevertheless,
the change in the meaning of the words over a time is not new phenomena. A famous example of
this is that the term Asura (The Lord) came to acquire the exactly opposite sense, i.e. Demon in
the Vedic tradition. Of course, this, in no way, suggests that the term Dasa-Dasyu was used to
show any kind of racial or linguistic distinctions.

In short, though the ‘Aryan as a race theory’ has not been proved on any, even genetically count
beyond doubt, the Indo-Aryan language speaking people’s migration theories are in circulation
in different formats. Like the Aryan race theory, PIE group of languages theory, too, has
prerequisites such as a common habitat of single, closely knit society and their subsequent
migrations to different directions, either in waves or in unison, in the small span of time of the
earliest settlement.

However, does this hypothesis stand up to the test of logic? Does it require explaining some
similarities in the various languages? There are many unanswered questions in this regard.

The Indian Vedicist scholarship denied the Aryan race theory completely or partially. However,
it did not deny the Indo-European language theory (IE). The only change they have made
recently is that the Aryans migrated from India towards the west up to Europe and not otherwise
as suggested by Western scholars. Needless to mention, that for them, the term ‘Aryan’ of India
means just the Vedic people, i.e. three Varnas. Max Muller asserts that, “In the later dogmatic
literature of the Vedic age, the name of Arya is distinctly appropriated to the three first castes-
the Brahmans, Kshatriyas, Vaishyas as opposed to the fourth, or the Sudras.” 6 We will see in
next chapters that how the Shudras meant those all who didn’t follow the Vedic religion. Also
kindly take the note that the term ‘Shudra’ is absent in the Rig Veda except of Purushasukta.
(RV 10.90)

The issue of original homeland of the Aryan (Vedic) people has also been a matter of a great
controversy since 19th century. Various theories have been proposed vehemently to prove Vedic
homeland either within India or outside India. One must wonder what is so special about the
Vedic people engaging in the search of their original habitat! However, let us not forget that
‘Original Habitat’ itself is a flimsy concept. There is nothing like original habitat when it comes
to the human race. In no way, it explains the common features in the world cultures and
languages. No race possesses any special qualities on basis of which it can boast of superiority
over others, as declared by the UNESCO. 7

Moreover, it would be wrong for the people to be hyped about the Vedics for it being the oldest
known religion codified in the Rig Veda. Vedic, as we have already discussed, is neither the
oldest religion nor are the Vedas or even the Avesta the oldest scriptures. The oldest religious
script found so far was in Egypt (2400-2300 BCE) in the form of Pyramid texts, that, too, in a
written format which is not the case with either IE scriptures like the Avesta and the Rig Veda. D

Did the Vedics (IE’s) come to India from Urasia? According to most of the scholars who believe
answer to this question is in affirmative, suggesting most suitable candidate for the original
habitat of the Indo-Europeans is South Russia. Did the Vedics migrate from India towards the
West spreading their language and culture? Vedicist scholars like Shrikant Talageri place their
original habitat towards the east of the Ghaggar (which he believes to be the Sarasvati) river. E

Let us take an overview of both the theories and check is they help us understand the reality of
the history of the humanity.

The general assumption is that for the spread of the Vedic religion and so-called Indo-European
languages, the migrations of people belonging to that certain stock or common ancestry is the
first requirement. Wherever might have been their original habitat, migration is the precondition
for the spread of cultural and linguistic elements as per the migration theorists.

For migration theorists, we can raise a few simple questions:

 Why do the migrations in unison or in batches take place?

 Are immigrants superior over the native populace wherever they migrate or it could be
otherwise?
 Is the massive migration essential for the spread of culture, languages and religion?
Many questions can be raised on this issue. However, in this chapter, let us deal with the
abovementioned questions only and try to find answers.

Migrations are not a new phenomena occurring in the human world. It is widely assumed that
from the ancient times, human race has been moving from one place to other in the search of the
food. Geographical spread of the human beings is attributed as reason to this. However, the
human beings had almost started settling down in different regions in the Mesolithic period
(approx 15,000 years BC).

C.K. Chase-Dunn (Institute for Research on World-Systems (IROWS), University of California,

states, “The earliest sedentary societies were of diversified foragers in locations in which nature
was bountiful enough to allow hunter gatherers to feed themselves without migrating. These first
villagers continued to interact with still nomadic peoples in both trade and warfare. The best
known of these is the Natufian culture of the Levant, villagers who harvested natural stands of
grain around 11,000 years ago. In many regions, the largest villages had only about 250 people.
In other regions, there were larger villages and regions with different population densities were
often in systemic interaction with each other.” 8

On this basis, we can surmise that by 10,000 years ago, most of the tribes had settled in their
respective regions. They were semi-nomadic for their profession of cattle herding and primal
agriculture. In 2013, the archaeologists unearthed evidence of early agriculture at a 12,000-year-
old site in the Zagros Mountains in eastern Iran. Mehrgarh site indicates that the human beings of
that region knew agriculture 10,000 years ago. There may be more sites indicating to the earliest
agriculture on the globe. The fact remains that it helped human being to settle in the respective
regions. Kenoyer asserts that, “….These data indicate that foragers were present in the exact
locations where we later see the emergence of settled agro-pastoral communities during the Early
Food Producing Era (7000-5500 BCE) and the Regionalization Era (5500-2800 BCE).” 9

Kenoyer furher declines the idea of any new influx of the population in the Indus Valley and
Gangetic regions. What does it means that the people who were progenitors of the Indus-
Ghaggar Valley Civilisation (IGVC) were settled in the same region long before Harappan times.
The technological advances led them to the urbanisation and establish trade networks with the
known world. Even after the decline of the IGVC, due to the climatic changes, although, people
abandoned urban centres, they spread out nearby opting for to live in small settlements or towns,
but they did not desert their habitat.

Cultural evolution of the human beings has been almost a simultaneous process in various parts
of the earth. We cannot attribute it to any particular advanced human race or region.

Michael Maystadt (Illinois State University), on basis of proofs gathered from Europe, states
“Around 40,000 years ago, there was a cultural explosion in which jewelry, art, and elaborate
burials suddenly became common place all across Europe. These attributes indicate that for the
first time in history, anatomically modern humans started to behave and think like modern
humans.” 10

Proofs found in other continents, too, support this conclusion. The evolution of cultures that
includes even the languages has been a parallel phenomenon across the globe as an outcome of
innate need of the human race! Since we cannot attribute such ‘cultural explosion’ result of any
particular intruding advanced tribe, how can we believe that the some so called advanced group
of PIE languages could cause acculturation of all other tribes those had already settled in the
respective regions with their own advanced cultures?

What was the status of languages in those times? Noam Chomsky, a proponent of the
discontinuity theory, says the ability to speak or language faculty is as old as 100,000 years. 11
From primordial gestures and sounds to the present complex state, the language has evolved
through the passage of the time.

Let us keep in mind here that there is a close relationship between developments of the language
with growing complexities of the life. Early languages must have been too rudimentary, limited
to some words supported by the gestures. Certain sounds are so common in the human world that
there is no need for tracing their origin to any certain place and population of common ancestry.

As per the linguists and psychologists, the language is an innate need of human race, it is
adequate to consider that the language evolutions, their exterminations and re-evolutions or
blend of own languages with other languages of neighbouring people with social mutations has
been the constant process in human societies of the globe. We find similar words having
hypothetically similar roots in different languages and conclusions of the scholars that one
language influenced the other have marred our linguistic history. We find several similar words
in most of the languages but the meanings attached to them are opposite or entirely different.

“Language consciousness is probably identical with every human meta-consciousness and may
therefore play a significant role in the control processes effected in the human subject by
consciousness,” states Jerzy Banczerowski, a noted linguist. 12

Development of languages is largely a collective process. Development of the words and their
order put syntactically to express larger meaning mostly depends on the cultural ethos and the
complexity of transactions of the people of the certain regions. The words gain larger yet
restricted meanings in the course of their evolution. Of course, here we are not ruling out the
borrowings and exchanges of vocabulary among the people those come across frequently, either
by virtue of being geographically connected or political and trade interconnections.

To get back to the topic under consideration, with the invention of agriculture or even before
that, around 15,000 years ago, the human beings had begun settling down. It does not mean the
people of certain settlements did not migrate ever. They did migrate, but it hardly would be
called as mass exodus. Sometimes the human beings had abandoned settlements because of the
drastic climatic changes, severe epidemics or because of an enemy driving them out forcibly or
enslaving them to occupy their fertile lands. Technological and commercial advances also have
led the human beings to establish new superior settlements in the close vicinity of the old ones.

Obviously, if invasions took place for occupying the lands, unless the victorious community
outnumbers the local masses, there cannot be extinction of the local languages and cultures. Most
of the times, the invaders have been societies located geographically close to the subjugated
people. Rather, there are examples, wherein, even the victorious invaders adapted to the local
cultures, leaving very insignificant mark of their own cultures on themselves. Even if PIE theory
considered being true, for a moment, a supposed early migrating branch of them to Anatolia,
could not enforce their language and culture on the local people, rather the PIE theorists admit
that the so called Aryan branch rather got merged in the local masses, accepting their culture and
language. 13

Considering the population of those times, the theory that the PIE immigrants enforced their so-
called ‘polished language’ and culture upon others in entire sphere of Asia and Europe remains a
hypothesis that attracts serious attention and rethinking.

In this regard, Kazanas states, "But invasion is the substratum of all such theories even if words
like ‘migration’ are used. There could not have been an Aryan immigration because (apart from
the fact that there is no archaeological evidence for this) the results would have been quite
different. Immigrants do not impose their own demands or desires on the natives of the new
country: they are grateful for being accepted, for having the use of lands and rivers for farming
or pasturing and for any help they receive from the natives; in time it is they who adopt the
language (and perhaps the religion) of the natives. You cannot have a migration with the results
of an invasion." 14

Kazanas’ remarks need to be taken seriously, though, all scholars at the least unanimously agree
that there was no invasion in India. However, they assert there was migration in the waves in
India. Migrations, as Kazanas explains, infact imply the invasions, nothing else. It is just a way
to put up a harsh proposition mildly! But was it a reality, even migration?

Whatsoever, the fact is, the history has witnessed recapturing of the lost lands by the
vanquished as soon they regain power. When people stage emergency exits from the lands
owing to the severe draughts or epidemics, the same people repopulate such lands when the
situation is right again. Many a times, settlement patterns seems to have changed after such
reoccupation, but change in the settlement patterns does not mean that the new people had
arrived there. Besides, migrations of small group of the people in search of the employment or
power have been well recorded since the ancient times. However, they hardly could influence the
languages of the people wherever they settled or ruled significantly. We cannot distinguish the
Huns, Kushans, Parthians and Scythians from other indigenous populations those came to India,
ruled and settled permanently here. If such powerful rulers belonging to the foreign regions
could not exterminate the local cultures and the languages, it is beyond even a wild logic that
wherever the so called PIE migrated they could exterminate all native cultures and languages to
enforce their own.

There were habitual nomads in the world and such nomads still do exist. Have they caused any
significant influence on the societies wherever they went or they have themselves acquired the
lingo social elements from the others?

Like monkeys, human beings, too, have resorted to knowing and owning their respective regions.
It has been observed in the case of Chimpanzees that they tend to live in the regions where they
must compete with gorillas for food and scarce natural resources. They also interact with the
neighbouring chimpanzees or even patrol their boundaries! Territory thus becomes more
important for them. 15

Territorial consciousness is a characteristic of them and so it is the case with the human beings
too. Similarly, there have been interactions, exchanges of vocabulary, syntax and socio religious
elements between the preliminary nomadic hunter-food gatherer societies over the millenniums,
which later had settled after cultural shift to agriculture, in the habitable but known regions of
those times. The geographical consciousness could have been the innate trait that made him
wander for food and game in the known regions, unless natural calamities forced him to find new
places for survival.

The PIE theory, though the factor of the similarities in the languages to some extent can be held
as true, but the perquisite that this theory proposes, migration of some linguistic group to effect
such similarities is fundamentally wrong.

For example, overpopulated north could not fundamentally change the linguistic structure and
vocabulary of the South Indians, so called Dravidians, except for few notable exchanges of the
vocabulary over the period of thousands of years, even with the so called Aryan expansion
towards the south or geographical closeness of different group of the languages. Why the distinct
group of the languages has survived even after so much of socio political interactions between
north and south or the so called Aryan dominance over the Dravidians is a question, which the
migration or invasion theories just cannot solve. Then how could migrating groups of so-called
PIE speaking people impact the original linguistic patterns of the people those already had settled
in their respective regions and comparatively were advanced societies over nomadic migrants?

Let us not overlook that the linguistic is a parascience. Since it is not a science as such, there are
multiple linguistic theories waiting for real breakthrough.

“Language for itself is neither complex nor complicated. It is what it is. Problems of language
are not problems for language but for the linguists inquiring into it. They do not originate from
the complexity of language but from the limitations of cognition,” as linguist Jerzy
Banczerowski aptly stated. 16
The parascience or pseudoscience applied by the linguists to reconst the PIE language
makes the issue more complicated than what it is in reality. Computer stimulated models of
language change may be wrong or misleading because we simply would not know how the
minds of the ancient people functioned! Computer cannot replace the human brain, no
matter how brilliantly computer programs are written. Even the efforts by the linguistics to
reconstruct the proto-language are hypothetical and unattested. Moreover different
reconstruction systems yield different proto-languages.

In addition, the pertinent question is from where had the PIE speaking communities arrived at the
certain place of South Russia (or any other hypothetical place of origin, such as Anatolia, Kurgan
etc.) before they again dispersed in different directions? What was the language they spoke
before they assembled at that certain place and how did it evolve to become completely another
linguistic entity? Was it a single tribe or the group of the tribes? Were not the human tribes
nomads since at the least 70,000 years ago, till they invented agriculture and started settling
about just 15,000 to 10,000 years ago? Would not this tribe or group of the tribes, too, have been
wandering in search of food and game since then? From where did this tribe or tribes’
accumulated basic vocabulary to build on their proto Indo-European language? Was it an
independent invention? In my opinion, the linguists, party to Aryan debate, have hardly
addressed these questions. F

There should be no doubt that the language is an innate faculty of human being. 17 The proofs are
appearing that the immediate predecessor of modern humane, Neanderthal man was capable of
complex speech. 18

Language is a social need of the human being and its evolution from rudimentary vocal
sounds/words to complex construction could not have been an independent process but must
have advanced through the mutual exchanges with innovations. In short, no language has
independent, single root origin to claim! This applies to so-called PIE speaking people who were
originally settled in some hypothetical Andronovo or Kurgan or Anatolian lands!

THEORIES OF ARYAN MIGRATIONS

The basic principle behind the spread of so called Indo-European languages that it was due to the
migrations of the Proto Indo-European language speaking people from some place, though, the
original place is still debated. The 19th century scholars believed that the language of the Rig
Veda was most archaic and that its origin can be traced back to the Bronze Age. The similarities
between European and Indian languages made them believe that at some time in the ancient past,
the group of Proto-Indo-European speaking people must have been settled together at some place
from where they took different directions to move on for unknown reasons. Various models were
proposed and being proposed even today to solve the mystery of PIE homeland.

However, the main hurdle in confirming the original homeland of the Aryans has been the lack
of any archeological proof. Still, the Migrationists or Invasionists proposed various homelands of
the Aryans, right from South Russia to Central Asia and Black Sea, Anatolia to India (Punjab)
haphazardly assigning the dates of their migrations to conveniently suite their theories.

Some of the theories are briefly listed below:

There are many theories, conflicting in nature and timelines. However, let us try to have a brief
look at generally popular hypotheses. Some theorists propose that people of Andronovo culture
migrated from Russia to Anatolia, Iran and South Asia. They claim that the Indo-Iranian people
were grouping of ethnic groups, such as Indo-Aryan, Iranian, Dardic and Nuristani people. The
Sintashta culture is supposed to be the predecessor of Andronovo culture inherited by the proto
Indo-Europeans. The migrations from the Andronovo culture is said to have taken place in two
waves.

As per this theory, the first wave consisted of migration into Anatolia, founding of Hittite Empire
and Mitanni kingdom while a later wave migrated south-eastward over Hindu Kush into North
India. G

As per Asko Parpola, the Iranian wave is the second wave. According to the scholars, the
Iranians first reached Black Sea in 8th century BC and finally, settled down into the Iranian
plateau.

According to Dr. Rajesh Kochhar, there have been three waves:

a. The ‘Murghamu’ (BMAC) related people who entered Baluchistan at Pirak, Mehrgarh south
cemetery, etc. and later merged with the post-urban Harappans during the late Harappans Jhukar
phase (2000-1800 BCE);

b. The Swat IV that co-founded the Harappan Cemetery H phase in Punjab (2000-1800 BCE);

c. The Rigvedic Indo-Aryans of Swat V that later absorbed the Cemetery H people and gave rise
to the Painted Grey Ware culture (to 1400 BCE).

Besides, attempts are made to attribute Painted Grey Ware culture to the second wave of
invading Aryans. However, the idea has been dismissed and PGW now is seen as an indigenous
culture of India, whose origins lay within its own area of dispersal. 19

There is other hypothesis that speakers of the proto-Indo-European (PIE) languages lived in
Anatolia in Neolithic era. However, the scholars do not much academically favor this hypothesis.
Similarly, Kurgan hypotheirs, presented by Marija Gimbutas in 1950, which too met with sharp
criticism.

Formulated by Elst, 20 Indian Homeland theory has been vehemently pushed forth by Shrikant
Talageri. According to him, the original habitat of the Aryans was East Punjab, beyond
Saraswati (Ghaggar) river. The clan of Sudasa (Bharata or Tritsu, a hypothetical sub-clan of Puru
Tribe) migrated towards west from there. According to him, the Indo-Aryans gradually spread to
Europe from Afghanistan. According to him, the migrated Anu tribe of India formed the Iranian
culture. 21 However, this hypothesis is not being well received. Bryant states, "There is at least a
series of archaeological cultures that can be traced approaching the Indian subcontinent, even if
discontinuous, which does not seem to be the case for any hypothetical east-to-west emigration.”
22

From this, we get a broad picture of the diversified migration/invasion theories of varied
hypotheses and motives. The basic assumption here is that no matter from where, but, unless
there was migration, the so called Indo-European languages could not have spread. However, we
have few questions about this, such as: what made the Indo-Europeans to migrate from their
original habitat? What was their population? If they migrated in various batches taking
independent directions, how many people were there in each batch? Can there be such a great
ethnic diversity in a region where Indo European language speaking people were originally
located? Was their population so large that they could overpopulate the lands to enforce their
languages on the locals?

The fact to be noted is that the geographical spread of the Andronovo culture or other candidate
cultures was limited. There have been no archaeological evidence indicating severe drought,
epidemic or any violent wars which may have driven out so called Indo-Europeans from their
original habitat. If they had decided to migrate on their own accord, what could be the
compelling reasons to desert a homeland where they had prospered? Besides, there are no
remnants of continuation of so called Indo-European culture at their claimed original homelands.
Moreover, there is no proof to indicate that the so called homelands had enough population to
overpopulate other regions wherever they went to influence native languages and cultures.

One must understand that the absence of conclusive homeland in itself is a proof for non-
existence of such PIE group of the people.

The only indicative evidence of the Andronovo people being the so called Aryans is the
existence of excavated horse-chariot burial practicesIt also is believed by some scholars that the
Andronovo people had inherited (or were successors of) the Sinthasta culture to which was
preceded by the Kurgan culture. . Chariots of the Andronovo people were spoke-wheeled and
horse drawn. Many scholars believe that the invention of horse-drawn chariots made Andronovo
people militarily advanced over the rest of the cultures which resulted in conquests and rapid
spread of the Indo-European culture. Earlier, Vedicist scholars were too happy to accept the
hypothesis. But there again was another U turn destined.

Vedicist scholars recently have started stating that though Rig Veda mentions chariots,
nowhere it speaks about the spoked-wheels! The scholars like Kazanas too are arguing that
since the Rig Veda nowhere mentions spoke-wheels, the Vedic people’s chariots could have
been of solid wheels and so were of the Mitanni, Hittites, Iranian’s and Greek’s! 23 Scholars also
have argueed whether ‘Ratha’ meant the chariot or just wagon. However, the Rig Veda and
the Avesta do mention chariots most frequently and prominently.

Then why this sudden somersault? Why they suddenly started to deny the spoked-wheel
chariots were known to the Rig Vedic people?

The ulterior motive is to stretch the timeline of Rig Veda, to take back substantially to pre-
Harappan times!

Such sudden shifts while stretching or adjusting timelines to suit the favorite homeland theories
has become so common that make us wonder whether the scholars really want to reach the truth!

It is assumed that the Andronovo people invented chariots and tamed the horses to make their
movement swifter, which made them advanced in the warfare. However, scholars know too well
that this is a hypothesis and they have very little to go on and prove that the Andronovo’s were
predecessors of the Indo-Iranians and the Hittite-Mitannians beyond doubt.

The social classification and the terminologies for the classes, too, have been used as a medium
to establish ‘oneness’ of these societies. However, unfortunately enough, the terms used for the
classes do not match with each other. For example, the Veda terms the priests as Brahmans
whereas the Avesta uses Athravans for the priests. The Vedas use Kshatriya for warriors whereas
the Avesta uses ‘ratheṣṭhā’ (Standing in the chariot) for the same class of people. Though, it
seems classification of the people, it does not show or indicate the permanent social
stratification. Rather, these proofs go contrary to the claim of oneness or common ancestry.

The burial practices described in the Rig Veda and the practices at Andronovo, too, differ
significantly. Ashvamedha (horse sacrifice) of the Rig Veda and the horse sacrifice and horse-
chariot burial along with significant amount of weapons of Andronovo has nothing in common
except showing that their life was horse centered. Also, all burial sites, which have been
excavated so far, do not show duplication in ritualistic rites elsewhere but rather seem to be
independent of them, with possible slightest influences of others, developed by the tribes those
were spread in Central and South Asia of those times. What we can deduce that the cultural
practices, such as of burials, have more ancient traits, started almost since then when the human
being began to think of ‘life after death’. Also, neither the ancient literature nor the
archeological proofs indicate migrations in India or out of India. Shaffer et al opines that,
“Some scholars suggest there is nothing in the “literature” firmly locating Indo-Aryans, the
generally perceived founders of modern South Asian culture tradition(s) outside of South Asia
and the archeological record is now confirming this.” 24

Though, the art of taming the horse and invention of spoke-wheeled chariots is attributed to the
Andronovo people or their predecessors, was migration required to spread the art of making
chariots? Was it so that the Andronovo people cut off from rest of the neighbouring world due to
which they did not come into the contact with it for the cultural or any kind of exchanges? If at
all they were inventors of it, did the art of chariot making spread because of their movement or
by the cultural exchanges with other tribes?

Hypothetical Aryans used chariots need not mean that they were inventors of the chariot. The
useful inventions, no matter in which tribe they were invented first, are adopted by others and do
spread rapidly. Many inventions are independent of others though they may look alike
superficially and there is no need to find a single root. For example, remains of earthen ovens
found at Kalibangan, Lothal etc. are quite similar to those found at Inamgaon of Maharashtra, as
observed by M.K. Dhavalikar. 25 It does not mean that the Indus people had ever migrated to
Deccan to spread the style of oven making! The spread of materialistic and cultural elements
cannot be linked to a single originator society and its movement.

Interestingly, horse and chariot burials were not new to the Bronze Age world, let aside Eurasia.
It appears from historical records that the chariots were used extensively in China too during the
Xia dynasty (21st century BC) era. Xi Zhong, a mythical sage, has been credited for the
invention of the chariot during Xia dynasty. 26

The chariot and horse burials, too, were not unknown to them as chariot and horse burial sites
have been found in excavations at Luoyang. Twenty-five chariots and 37 sacrificed horses have
been unearthed at two sites. Interestingly the Chinese chariots, too, were spoke-wheeled. These
remains date back to approximately 1,600 to 1,100 B.C.E. (Shang Dynasty) Did Chinese imitate
them from Andronovo people or Andronovo people had ever migrated to China? There is no
proof any which way. In fact, horse sacrifice was known to the out of hypothetical PIE world as
well. Funeral sites containing domesticated horse bones and horse decorating items including
strapping that date back to the megalithic period have been excavated in Madhya Pradesh and
Vidarbha region. 27 Thus, Anthony’s statement, “Chariot driving Shang kings of China and the
Mycenaean princes of Greece of the ancient world at about 1500 BCE, shared a common
technological debt to the Late Bronze Age herders of Eurasian steppes.” 28 sounds ridiculous.

Therefore, it cannot be stated in affirmative tone that the Andronovo or their ancestors invented
spoke-wheeled chariots and were only people to practice horse-chariot burials. ‘Ashvamedha’
(Horse sacrifice), practiced by the Vedic people, was entirely of a different style than of
Andronovo people. Ashvamedha had special purpose behind it, which does not seem to be
practiced even by their closest neighbors – the Avestans.

Indus people traded with Mesopotamia, Turkmenistan, Iran and other regions by sea and land
routs as well, at least since 3100 BC. 29 It means that these regions were already populated and
flourishing even before the Andronovo people started their supposed migrations. The people
there were, as the physical proofs speak, literate and an advanced society. If Indus people were
not from Indo-European speaking stock, as the migrations of the IE speakers had not yet taken
place, what were the languages of the people residing in those vast regions? They certainly knew
spoke-wheel. The archaeologists initially had bluntly concluded that the Indus people did not
know the spoke-wheels. This conclusion was formed on the basis of the finds of earthen cart
toys, which had solid wheels. However, as recently reported by senior archeologist B.B. Lal,
specimens of spoke-wheels have surfaced during excavations at Kalibangan and Rakhigarhi. H

These proofs belong to the mature phase of the Indus culture, i.e. 2,600 BC. This evidence
predates over the spoke-wheels of Andronovo. It only suggests that the spread of technologies
does not require the physical migrations of the people. They could be independent developments
as well! Concluding that the Andronovo civilisation was inventor of the spoke wheeled chariots
making their movement swifter was a blunder. Rather spoke-wheeled or not, chariots cannot be a
proof of superiority of any civilisation.

Besides, the claim that PIE speakers were the first people to tame the horses has been proven
false and ridiculous. Why should a single group of the people ingenuous enough to tame the
horses, invent spoke-wheeled chariots, desert its own region to spread their so-called advanced
technologies? The ridiculous thinking has prompted even the scholar like Witzel to state bluntly,
“Something of this fear of the horse and of the thundering chariot, the "tank" of the 2nd
millennium B.C. is transparent in the famous horse 'Dadhikra' of the Puru king Trasadasya
("Tremble enemy" in RV 4.38.8) ........The first appearance of thundering chariots must have
stricken the local population with terror similar to that experienced by the Aztecs and the Incas
upon the arrival of the iron-clad, horse riding Spaniards.” 30

However, the physical proofs speak that the horse taming or chariot making was not the only
business of so called PIE people, but other societies as well! Based on such fragile findings
making bold statements suggest nothing but imaginative conclusions of the scholars!

The Indo-European migration period from Andronovo culture is roughly estimated at about
2,000 BC. The period of Indus culture is estimated from 3,200 BC up to 1,750 BC. Early Indus
culture predates so called PIE culture by 1,100 years.
This is not a small passage of the time and there was literally nothing to fill in by the so called
Aryans. When the Indus civilisation had already reached par excellence matured phase as
compared to the civilisations of those times, the so-called Indo-Iranians were still settled in their
respective hypothetical homeland. It is an erroneous to even think that a small group of people
migrated to different directions for no obvious reason and found other habitats of different
geographies and climates to settle down forever. Influencing the entire culture of the natives by
migrating nomads thus is out of question.

We can observe that the region between Russian Steppes to Anatolia has been a populated region
since ancient times, even before so called Andronovo or PIE culture had came into an existence.
The people living there engaged in a variety of trade with each other and naturally, they must
have established a dialogue. Exchanges of cultural, religious thoughts, technological advances
and vocabulary during such transactions were but obvious.

We find wars, too, taking place in ancient history. The Rig Veda mentions several wars with a
variety of tribes but do not mention anywhere the language of the enemy tribes being
unintelligible, though it could be dialectically slightly different with variances in accents,
obvious from the terms such as ‘Mughra vacha, anasa’ appearing in Rig Veda for such tribal
speeches. With Witzel detecting about 500 words of non IE origin along with certain
grammatical forms those are alien to the IE in the Rig Veda is a proof of such linguistic
exchanges. 31

However, Marija Gimbutas claims, "…The process of Indo-Europeanization was a cultural, not
a physical, transformation. It must be understood as a military victory in terms of successfully
imposing a new administrative system, language, and religion upon the indigenous groups." 32

Besides, the claim is that Indo-Europeans warriors were responsible for replacing peaceful
matriarchal cultures with patriarchal cultures. Though, some scholars have refuted these
observations stating that the expansions of Indo-Aryans were gradual and peaceful, still, it is
opposed by some.

However, such proponents of invasion theory seem to have overlooked the fact that barring a few
tribes, the gradual replacement of matriarchal society with patriarchal society has been a global
phenomenon, which cannot be attributed to the invading, expansionists and hostile Indo-
Europeans. Moreover, we cannot overlook that the prominence of female deities in any ancient
or modern societies does not necessarily mean that the societies followed matriarchal social
order. Anthropologists, too, seem to have similar views. What we can surmise here is, there is
not enough proof to establish that the social order took drastic shift because of the hostile Indo-
European invaders having different social order, that the rest of the world was matriarchal and
wherever the Indo-European invaders went, they established their rule and enforced the
patriarchal social order upon them. There could be the societies of both types and egalitarians
like early Egyptians co-existing on the earth of those times.
The migration theories thus become problematic. They are built merely on the artificial
reconstructions of the so called PIE languages single origin hypothesis, burial practices and
hypothetical social orders of those times. We must consider the opinion of George Erdosy. He
observes, “It is impossible, thus, to regard the widespread distribution of certain beliefs and
rituals, which came to be adopted by Indo-Iranian speakers, as evidence of population
movements. Just such reasoning led B. G. Tilak to believe that the Aryans originally inhabited
the Polar Regions due to their knowledge of the fixed pole star and polar days and nights,
knowledge which was probably obtained from Scythian tribes.” 33

We can understand why Indian Vedicist scholars want to prove India being the homeland of
Vedic people. But Europeans seems to be far more curious to find the homeland of the proto
Indo-Europeans. Why it is so can be found in the statement of J P Mallory, which goes like this,
“While many have maintained that the search for the PIE homeland is a waste of intellectual
effort, or beyond the competence of the methodologies involved, the many scholars who have
tackled the problem have ably evinced why they considered it important. The location of the
homeland and the description of how the Indo-European languages spread is central to any
explanation of how Europe became European. In a larger sense, it is a search for the origins of
western civilization.” 34

Finding the roots can be said a psychological as well political need of the modern human being,
but while doing so, building the theories on flimsy proofs naturally will turn out to be a bubble.

What we can derive from the above is for the spread of rituals, beliefs, languages and material
culture movement (migration) of the population is not necessary. The single location theory has
its limitations whereas the multi-location theory for the developments of languages can solve
many riddles of the ancient times. To understand how single location theory puts our studied but
biased conclusions in jeopardy, let us have a look at Out of Africa Theory.

Out of Africa theory: Becoming a myth

It would not be imprudent here to discuss the Out of Africa theory, as it claims single location
theory as PIE supporters do. First presented in 1987, Out of Africa Theory assumes that the first
Homo-Sapiens, the immediate predecessor of the present human species, appeared in Africa
about 1.30 lakh years ago and about some 60,000 years ago started migrating to different
continents to populate the globe replacing the population of the descendents of Home Erectus. 35

Until recently ‘Out of Africa’ theory was considered to be a base of human origin and migrations
all over the world to inhibit the continents. The assumption was based on the finding of
fragmented remains of earliest Homo-Sapiens in Africa, dated as earliest as 1,30,000 years. It
was believed that the first human being appeared in Africa from where our ancestors began
dispersing in other continents taking different routes about 60,000 years ago. Until recently, all
anthropologists held this theory as the gospel truth and it had gained phenomenal popularity. The
hypothesis was turned to a theory, based on which the human distribution maps were drawn.
However, a team of archaeologists and anthropologists excavated teeth fossil of the pre-human
ancestor “Afrasia djijidae” in 2012 in Myanmar. This is said to be the missing link between
Africa and Asia. This new finding showed that the Asia was the first place where our pre-human
ancestor appeared. The findings of four teeth fossils are dated 37 million years old. They are
similar to the fossils of approximately same age found in Libya. This find has led to a change in
the earlier hypothesis that the early Human species lived in Asia from where they moved to
Africa, fairly late in the process of evolution. “Not only does Afrasia help seal the case that
anthropoids first evolved in Asia, it also tells us when our anthropoid ancestors first made their
way to Africa, where they continued to evolve into apes and humans,” says Chris Beard,
Carnegie Museum of Natural History Paleontologist. 36

The story does not end here. We have another claimant from China as well! In The Sunday
Morning Herald (25.8.14), Peter Spinks, Fairfax Science columnist reported the findings of
fragmented human (Homo Sapiens) teeth in China (Lunadong, China's autonomous region of
Guangxi Zhuang) and part of Southeast Asia. These, too, are 1,30,000 years old, as old as the
finds of Africa. Spinks quotes anthropologist Christopher Bae of the University of Hawaii
saying, "The Lunadong modern Homo Sapiens’s teeth contribute to growing evidence that
modern and/or transitional humans were likely in eastern Asia” 37

The original theory that the human species dispersed from Africa about 60,000 years ago is now
being questioned because of the several finds on the various continents predating the assumed
date of the early dispersals. Though, the scientists still believe that Homo-Sapiens appeared first
in Africa and they may have taken different paths in very early age than was thought before.

However, even this theory raises serious question because it was also believed that the hominids
or human like animals had appeared first in Africa about 25 million years ago. The finds of
Myanmar and Libya are as old as 37 million years. This shatters the foundation of ‘Out of
Africa’ theory.

Anthropologist Michael Maystadt (Illinois State University) concludes, “Does the evidence
prove that all humans originated in Africa from a small population of hunter-gatherers that lived
over 150,000 years ago? Not exactly: while the Out of Africa model does incorporate certain
fossil, genetic, and archaeological evidence, the same categories of evidence also prove the
complete opposite. Humans seem to have certain morphological features that were around
hundreds of thousands of years ago, indicating that the complete replacement endorsed by the
Out of Africa model could not have been complete. Genetic evidence also demonstrates that
certain blood traits and even the mtDNA evidence do not consistently fit the Out of Africa
model. The archaeological evidence also indicates that complete replacement probably did not
take place. Why then, does the “Out of Africa” model continue to be so popular and widely
accepted today?..... This thesis has demonstrated that the Out of Africa model is most likely
not the correct model of modern human origins.” (Emphasis mine) 38
Many scholars have recently raised serious questions about the validity of Out of Africa model.
Australian historian Greg Jeffery asserted, “The whole ‘Out of Africa’ myth has its roots in the
mainstream academic campaign in the 1990s to remove the concept of race. When I did my
degree they all spent a lot of time on the ‘Out of Africa’ thing but it’s been completely disproved
by genetics. Mainstream still holds on to it.” 39 Similarly, in Armenia, 325,000 to 350,000 year
old stone tools have been found and they, too, have posed a serious challenge to this model.
Similarly, many examples that pose a serious threat before the myth of Out of Africa are being
now vehemently discussed.

Therefore, jumping from one location origin theory to other, whenever old and older findings
come to the fore, is not going to solve our problem of origin. If we carefully observe the new
findings and consider the possibility of more finds surfacing in the future, the assumption that
any species appeared at a single location and dispersed globally becomes irrelevant.

There cannot be some unique location where raw material for the early biological formations was
made available by some unknown forces i.e. God. If Out of Africa theory poses serious problems
over single location origin of human ancestors, how can we apply it to the single location origin
of the PIE speaker’s?

The same logic applies to the ‘Out of India” theory too. Now, when we have discussed as to how
the migrations are not an unforeseen phenomenon in the human history, but are mass exoduses
without leaving any footprints of the culture or language at his original homeland, are something
that have no scientific basis, let us have a look at the other serious lacunas of PIE origin theory.

OTHER ASPECTS

When it comes to linguistics and similarities in hypothetical IE languages speaking world, what
oldest proofs do we have apart from the Avesta and the Rig Veda? The Rig Vedic language is
considered to be rather modern, dating back to 1,000 BC. The Rig Vedic language has
transformed adorning new characteristics through the Rig Vedic age until it took the final shape.
We have an oldest proof of this language not from the Rig Veda or Avesta but from the
Bogazkoy treaty of Hittites and the Mitanni (between Suppiluliuma and Shattiwaza, 1380 BC) in
which Vedic Gods like Mitra, Indra, Varuna, Nasatyas (Mitrašil, Uruvanaššil, Indara, and
Našatianna in Mitanni.) were invoked among series of other local gods. This is considered a
major proof of Indo-Aryans existence in Mesopotamian domain. However, this cannot be the
proof of language or presence of Indo-Europeans. It only means that the Mitanni people, too,
knew some Gods known to the Vedics and Zoroastrians. Also the spelling (phonemes) of the
names is close to Prakrit languages rather than with the Vedic Chandas. It is assumed that the
Mitannis did not speak any Indo-European language except the ruling families those were of
Indo-European origin. In addition, the deity’s names appeared in the treaty seems to have taken
local forms. Personal names of Mitanni Kings like Tusratta (Dashratha), too, have some traces of
Sanskritic (actually Prakritic) forms. The other name is Artatama, which belongs to Persian
personal names. The name of the capital, Vashukanni (Sk. Vasukhani), is said to be close to
Sanskrit. Although many other Sanskritic personal names have been found, this cannot be a
conclusive proof of Aryan presence there. South Indian Dravidian kings also had adapted
personal and city names from Sanskrit in the past, though, their own languages and ethnicity was
drastically different.

Another proof forwarded is a Hurrian text written as a manual of horse training by Kikkuli, a
Mitanni, in around 1,400 BC. The text obviously is in Hurrian languages, which is neither
Semitic nor Indo-European but belonging to the Hurro-Urartian language family. According to
the scholars, the IE substratum is present in the text in the form of numerics like aika (Vedic
Sanskrit eka, one), tera (tri, three), panza (pancha, five), satta (sapta, seven), na (nava, nine),
vartana (vartana, rounds or a turn of a wheel). But except from these so-called Indo-Aryan
terms, there are borrowings from other languages, too!

“….The Mittan-Hurrian horse trainers and their Hittite colleagues used common terms as well as
special hippological termini technici from different languages such as Sumerian, Akkadian,
Hittite,Luvian, Hurrian and Indo-Aryan in the ancient Near East” demonstrates Peter Raulwing.
40

This clearly indicates, to which most of the scholars have not paid any heed to the fact that
technical terms, not only from supposed Indo-Aryan, but from other languages also have been
used in the horse training manual of Kikkuli. Raulwing in this paper also admits that the Indo-
European was not the spoken language at the time of Kikkuli. Jumping on to the conclusion that
the Indo-Aryans had been present in those regions is mere a flimsy hypothesis.

Except occurrences of numerological and colour terms, there is no linguistic association between
the so called IE language and the work of the Kikkuli. Moreover, the above mentioned terms find
close resemblance with the Prakrit languages, to which linguists define as middle Indo-Aryan
languages, rather that so called IE languages.

Bogazkoy treaty

The scholars are almost in unison agreeing when they fix the period of the Rig Veda being 1,500
BC and onwards. Like the Rig Veda, the Avesta, too, mentions the same Gods like Indra, Mitra
and Nasatyas except Varuna which appear in the Bogazkoy treaty. The date of the Bogazkoy
treaty is almost fixed at 14th century BC. When the treaty was being signed, according to the
scholars’ estimate, Rig Vedic Aryans were already in India and busy composing the Rig Veda.
That work continued until 1,200 BC or 1,000 BC. Iranian Aryans just had then settled in their
respective part of the world. Mitannis, too, are considered to be another branch of migrating IE’s
that reached Anatolia establishing their rule prior to the Indo-Iranians migration. However, the
question as to how the mighty Indo-Europeans had gotten absorbed in the Hurrian society
without leaving any mark on their languages, except the memory of few deities and numeric
names remains unanswered.
While discarding this idea that the Anatolian royals were the part of first branch to migrate, we
must see the fact that though the names of the Gods or demons are similar, their characters were
different with the different societies. For example Indara, (RV Indra) Daeva of Avesta, is the
despicable demon enumerated after Angra Mainyu. Though mentioned only twice his character is
quite different in Avesta. Rig Veda repeatedly recites his noblest ever deed to have killed Vritra
to release the dammed waters. However, this deed is not mentioned in the Avesta, though a
Verethragna is mentioned in Yasts (Bahram Yast 14), have been attempted to connect with Indra,
being his epither Vitreghna (Killer of demon Vritra). Though both the terms looks similar in
sound, this term of Avesta just means a form of divinity, giver of victory. Boyce states about the
term, “Verethraghna is the personification of victory. A neuter noun ‘verethraghna meaning
literally the “smiting of resistance”….. his yast, though ill-preserved, contains what seem very
archaic elements” 41 Hence there is no possible connection in the both.

In Avesta, rather the similar task, killing of three headed dragon Azi (Sk. Ahi) Dahaka is
attributed to a mythical heroic king Traetaona. (Interpreted as the Son of the Av. Deity Thritas).

Thrita and Traetaona terms do also appear in Rig Veda as Trita and Traitana. Trita of Rig Veda
means ‘three fold’ or just a numeral, whereas Traitana is one of the slaves who had attacked blind
seer Dirghatamasa. Thus Trita of Rig Veda is numeral whereas Traitana is a personal name. 42
Hence, there cannot be any connection between the two, although the terms appear to be same in
sound.

Similarly, we find the different characteristics of the identical deity/demon names in Avesta and
Rig Veda. We cannot be so sure what characteristics were assumed by the Mitannians by similar
deity names. Varuna does not find mention in Avesta I whereas Nasatyas do. However, Nasatyas
appear as demons in Avesta, like Indra. In short, except Mitra, other Gods have demonic
characters in Avesta. From the treaty, it appears that they altogether were Gods to the Mitannians.
Hence, in all probabilities, they must have had different characteristics than that of Avesta and
Rig Veda.

Also, it is pertinent to note here that the names of gods appearing in the treaty are invoked with
series of other deities unknown to our world. Most importantly, except this treaty, although, so
many other treaties and correspondence with officials and other kingdoms that have been found
in the excavations, we find no mention of these gods again! 43 It is surprising that even if the
Hittites referred to thousand of gods, many appear in the various excavated tablets, but no
mention of these so called Vedic Gods except of one treaty. Though, we know the names of all
these Mitannian Gods, we do not know anything more about them. 44 Hence, the conclusion
drawn by the scholars about the presence of the Indo-Europeans in Anatolia is not valid on just a
paragraph of a treaty mentioning Vedic gods or Avestan demons as we find no repetitive mention
of them.

Borrowing of the names of deities is not uncommon in civilisations, though their characters may
differ drastically. In many cases, the characters of the Gods are borrowed but they are named
differently, as it happened with the Greek gods when adopted by the Romans. Keeping his
characteristics almost same, Skanda is named and worshipped as Murugan in South India.
Technically, a few characteristics of Greek God Zeus seem to match Vedic Indra, though the
names are quite different. However, the mythologies associated with Zeus do not suggest in any
way that the Zeus is equivalent to Vedic Indra.

It is widely assumed by Western scholars that the cult of Mithras was Romanised version of the
Persian Religion of the Zoroaster. Rig Vedic Mitra and Iranian Mithra, is synonym for contract,
trust and fairness. Later, it became the other name of the Sun. In the Rig Veda, Mitra is mostly
coupled with Varuna. During the period from the 1st century AD to the 4th century AD, Mithras
mysterious cult was popular in the Roman world, which was believed to have been introduced to
Romans by Cilician pirates of Anatolia. It was naturally assumed that the Persian (Zoroastrian)
Mithra had travelled across to the Rome to become basis of the largest cult of those times. This
cult was so large that scholars like Ernest Renan believed that had there been no rise of
Christianity, the world would have become Mithraic. 45

However, Paul Kriwaczek states, “There was only one difficulty with this thesis (Cumonts), and
not minor one. Nothing that we know about the Roman Mithras matches the Persian Mithra.
Neither cult nor iconography…..The result is rather convoluted, one might almost say farfetched
explanation of remains, in which symbols are said to symbolise other symbols, which in turn
symbolise yet others.” 46

Mithraic cult images found in iconography are entirely opposite to the concepts of the
Zoroastrian Mithra and Vedic Mitra. So, though the name Mithra, which either travelled from
Iran to Rome or was of independent origin, appears to be same but nothing else is common
between the both. There are numerous similar examples which pose the major challenge before
the advocates of PIE theory.

In fact, apart from Vedic deity names, non-Vedic or non-Avestan God Shiva, too, appears in
various language groups, especially Semitic. James Hewitt stated, “He is the God Saiv of the
Ural-Altaikc-Finns, meaning the protecting God, an epithet of the deity, which is, according to
Castren, common to all the Ural Altaic Tribes. He is also the Hindu shepherd god Sib or Saiva,
and the father god of the Semitic races, who called themselves the sons of Sheva or Sheba.” 47
Would it be logical to derive from this that the Indian Shaivaits of the remote past did move to
these regions to spread worship of their God and culture or the Semitics had encroached India?
Either suggestion would be ridiculous.

Travel of technical terms such as numerals, too, is not sufficient proof to establish migration
theories. Had it been the case, the Mitanni’s or Hurrian’s language would not much differ from
the IE languages. Assyrian empire did belong clearly to Asura culture, but their language was not
at all Indo-European. It proves that the IE speakers’ migration was not responsible for the Indra-
Varuna’s mention in Bogazkoy treaty. Moreover, one has to bear in the mind that their (Mitanni
and Assyrians) boundaries were not far from the Iranian lands. Therefore, minor exchanges
between the neighboring civilisations cannot be attributed only to the migrations. It is ridiculous
argument that by 14-1500 BC Indo-Aryans were absorbed in more numerous Hurrian
populations. Why the same logic then cannot be applied to North-West India and Iran? Iran and
North-West India, too, was populated at the time of hypothetical entry of the Aryans which could
have absorbed them in the local culture making them forget or abandon their own languages and
culture!

Let us not forget here that the recorded history of the Assyrian empire dates back to 2,500 BC
until 605 BC and was mightiest of those times. We do not have any records, even in Avesta or
Rig Veda or in records of the contemporary civilisations, of movements or empires of IE
speaking people anywhere in the vast region of Central Asia and Europe. The evidences of
reconstructed and broken linguistic traces cannot become the foundation of such a vital claim
about any of the civilisation.

What we must not forget here is journey of the human has very ancient origins, before he started
settling about 15,000 to 10,000 years ago. It does not at all begin with the hypothetical
movement of the so called PIE people that began about just 2,000 BC or little earlier. No
language or culture could be independent of others wherever they had to roam in most reachable
regions before the human being was just forager. The tribes grew, branched, were either
assimilated with others or took independent paths to branch further to take different directions.
The process of mergers, assimilations and separations continued in the human history from
about 60,000 BC till about 10,000 BC. In this vast passage of the time, the branched or merged
tribes must have kept their innovations continued while adding new developments they came
across. The material and psychological adaptations and expressions would be different from
place to place and thus people to people. Though ancient traits of individual tribes possibly
would survive, but in what form? Certainly, it would survive with corruptions, improvisations,
alterations coupled with new innovations.

The possible interactions between the tribes of the past, neutral or otherwise, it couldn’t be just a
scene of clashes or mutual friendships or solitary roaming all the time. It must have been a scene
of mutual exchanges, transactions while crossing each other, of not only early vocabulary but
technical advancements as well, even from the enemy tribes to make their tribe stronger to make
it competent enough.

In the era of antiquity, the tribal identities, necessary for survival, must have been developed
from early age. Early totemic choices must have been to represent their identities. The division
between good forces versus evil forces must have been made by the human being in his very
early stage of tribal civilisation. Fertility symbols for the mystery of reproduction, yet unsolved
to them, must have carried too much significance and hypnotic awe everywhere in the human
mind. We find existence of genital worship almost in every part of the world for this very reason.
Geography to them was meant a mean of livelihood to sustain their tribes. During that era,
geographical conscience must have gradually developed limiting his roaming to the known and
comfortable territories alone. Whatever the human tribes of about 15,000 BC were, they learnt
from the interactions with multitude of other tribes through generations with their own wealth of
cultural and linguistic independent traits, naturally would have became foundation of their
culture when they began settling in the respective regions. They developed their own languages
and cultures from what they had accumulated from their experience of millenniums of wandering
life to suit their own needs and environments.
The human history does not begin with the so called dispersal of a hypothetical tribe or group of
the people speaking some language to impose language and culture upon others. Rather, it begins
in remote antiquity since when the human being has been in contact, brief or longer, with
surrounding regions during his nomadic life. The cultural and linguistic divergence, though more
or less, naturally had impact of what they acquired from others in their past. To deities, they gave
different characters or borrowed the characters but named differently. Similar things did happen
about other aspects of the life, which took independent routs, his way, when he settled down. For
this reason, we cannot attribute the similarities in the languages or cultures to the movement of
one to impact many others! Making such claims, as Europeans and Vedics do, it just is like
promoting a fake hypothesis to nourish false racial or cultural egotism to prove some race or
culture superior and antique over others. This is not the science of humanity.

ASURA V/S DEVA

Asura in Indian culture is not meant as same as of Vedas. Asura term is not as same as of Iranians
even they, too, were prominent adherents of Asura faith. The Yasna, though linguistically similar
to Vedic Yadnya, both are not the same except the fact that they are fire and Soma-centric. Indian
Asuras mostly were practicing idolatry. Vedic and Avestans did not worship any idol. Asuras of
Assyria, although, the God Ashur being a supreme deity, his pantheon is full of other gods like
Enlil, Marduk, Nippur etc, those cannot be related with any other civilisation. Rather Assyrian
religion (that spread about various adjoining regions) was polytheistic, worshipping variety of
gods including city gods. Ashur was deified form of the city of Assur, capital of the old Assyrian
kingdom. Avesta is rather monotheistic; though there are some ‘yazatas’ (worthy of worship) are
mentioned. Similarly, though fire-centric, Vedic religion is polytheistic. The Asuras of Assyria
seem to be practicing idolatry but not phallic worship, whereas Indian Asura culture was mostly
based on genital worship that continues even today! Though the mythologies find quite
superficial similarities, they have different characters everywhere. The story of Manu and Noah
appears to have same root, most probably acquired from others while on move in remote
antiquity, but have been developed independently to suit their respective general psychologies
and religious needs.

Some scholars have also postulated the movements of the Semitic or Assyrian people to India
establishing their kingdoms in IGVC. Malati J. Shendge states that the Ashur of the Assyrians,
Ahur of Iran and Asur of the Rig Veda and India used with other forms of the same word such as
Ashir are the same terms though pronounced or spelled differently. She further asserts that Osiris
of Egyptians, too, is close to the Asura term, Egyptian borrowing the name from Assyrian people
or any other tribe in remote past. However, the word did not denote the same characteristics and
meaning wherever it was used. In her books, Shendge suggests that the Harppan culture, too, was
Asura oriented after finding close similarities of the term ‘Shiva’ in other Asur centric
civilisations. 48

In its early hymns of Rig Veda, the epithet Asura was lavishly used for previous supreme deity
Varuna along with other deities like Mitra, Agni, Rudra, Pushan, Marut, Soma and Savitri.
Surprisingly, Rig Veda (7.65.2) even describes Mitra-Varuna as “Devanam asura”, Gods of the
Asuras.
However, the position of the Asuras is not maintained same in Rig Veda throughout. Dr
Bhandarkar informs us that Indra and Agni later acquired the position of ‘Asurahan’, destroyer of
Asuras. (RV 6.22.4, 7.13.1) Asuras are called godless in some verses. What Bhandarkar deduce
from the various shifts in regards with Asuras is that the Asura term was used in two senses, one
is as supreme deity and other as people. He also suggests that the Assyrians had settled down in
India prior to the entry of Aryans. 49 However, we find that the Asura epithet for supreme deity
itself has taken a drastic shift in the Rig Veda. Hence, the term Asura had no two senses, but one
and the same, i.e. epithet of the supreme deity or demon and its followers. When Vedic people
abandoned Asura as their supreme deity and embraced Deva cult, they no longer remained to be
Asuras or Asura centric.

Though, the Assyrians being settled in India before so called entry of the Aryans is a farfetched
suggestion of Dr Bhandarkar and Shendge, in regards with Asura, the fact remains that Asura
term along with Deva had spread from India till Assyria, somewhere powerful, somewhere not.
Zoroaster rejuvenated the dying Asura (Ahura) oriented religion in Northeast Iran from where it
again spread in southern and west Asia and remained dominant for some time. The religion or
culture of Devas seems to be predominant before he reintroduced his religion. Rig Veda, too, in
its early period of compositions followed the suit or they still were following Asuric culture and
religion from ancient times even before they started composing Rig Vedic hymns.

Hence, the terms for Devas and Asuras, including Shiva must have very antique origin, could
have originated even far before 15,000 BC. The people were still nomads and exchanged and
mutually developed some rudimental concepts of duality i.e. Good forces versus evil forces.
Having designated some common names to them, they remained almost same or were further
modified independently when they settled down taking almost independent paths of their own
culture and linguistic developments based on what features people had accumulated from the
past as the initial capital to go on.

In the course of time, the terms seem to have acquired different meanings. Even shifts from
Asura to Devas orientation of the Vedic people has been well preserved in Rig Veda. Mostly, the
shift could have resulted because of the rivalries among the adjoining regions and their faiths or
independent likes or dislikes. Though many retained some terms of the past, they also developed
independent pantheon of gods and demons as well which is evident from the mythologies of
every culture. This is why, being geographically too close resulting in many similarities in
language and religion, the Avestan pantheon is not equally similar with Vedic pantheon.

Attempting to reconstruct the proto languages could be entertainment for the linguists; it does not
prove their single location origin. For example David Anthony suggests the words for wool and
wheel are the oldest in proto Indo European language, as old as 3,500 BCE to 4,000 BCE. His
assumptions are based on the hypothesis that the wheeled wagons were not known before 4,000
BCE, because the first mention of the wagons in the tablets found at Eanna temple of Uruk
precinct that dates about 3,500-3,370 BCE. He also refers to the Hungarian clay models those are
dated about 3,500 BCE. He also talks about the species of the lambs that humans developed for
the sake of the wool and milk from wild sheep. What he means is the vocabulary for the wool
and wheel (sometimes including wagon) has been originated from proto IE languages, even
adapted by the Semitic language speaking people. However, he admits that there is no proof
where originally the wheel was invented and wool was brought in use for cloth. 50 And in
reality as well, there is no proof that the vocabulary for wheel and wool has PIE origin or there is
no proof to conclusively attest the location where it was invented first. In fact, the word for some
innovative creation naturally would belong to the people those invented it for practical purpose,
after lot many trial and errors. The innovation would spread rapidly seeing its utility along with
what it was called first, may be with corrupt or improvised forms. Finding such corrupt forms
and attempting to reconstruct them with, to which Anthony rightly call as dead language; PIE is
nothing but corruptness of our intelligence. The fact is PIE never existed.

So, whether they were deities or epithets for culture or nobles, or early inventions, did spread for
the want of their material and cultural applications. They did not remain same, with new
characters they were adorned, new meanings they delivered and new designs were developed. If
you compare designs of the chariots of the ancient era, region by region, you will find a variety
of the models. The innovations, too, are acquired suitable to the land and mindsets of the local
communities of the acquirers. It becomes thus impossible to find provenance of any early
invention or earliest words used for them and how they transformed in that course and how they
were retained or improvised is unknown to us as simply there is no any record.

THE GREEKS AND OTHERS

The Greeks, too, are considered a part of PIE speaking people migrating to Greece. Greek history
dates back to the maximum of 900 BC. However, if we look at the pre-history of Greece, we find
the physical proofs of mature Bronze Age in Greece. The Minoans (C 2,700 to 1,500 BCE) are
said to be the founders of the Greek civilisation though we do not know what the Minoans called
themselves. The name is given to the civilisation after a legendary king Minos. The Minoans
were primarily sea farers. Although, their Linear A (hieroglyphic) script remains undeciphered as
yet, the excavations have thrown light on the Minoan civilisation. According to the scholars,
Minoan society was matriarchal, women having higher status than their counterparts had in many
other ancient civilisations. This is reflected from their religion where the primary deity was earth
goddess although the male deity armed with spear, too, was worshiped. However, the civilisation
came to an abrupt end because of disastrous volcanic eruptions. Weakened Minoan age was then
replaced by the Mycenaean’s.

Culturally rich age is Mycenaean (1500 - 1100 BC) is also called as ‘Heroic Age’. The
Mycenaean’s established city states and textile industry, too, was prosperous during this phase.
But it was unknown to the Vedic cult of those times. 51

Linguistically speaking V Gordon Childe states, “…Yet many names-Odysseus, Achilles, Pelops
- can only with great difficulty and by torturing phonetics be explained as Indo-European.” 52

In fact, the influx of Indo-Europeans in Greek culture is hardly traceable. The rule of Midas
(Phrygian) in 8th century B.C. and its some remains in Greek languages are interpreted as the
presence of Indo-European tongue. However, V Gordon Childe states that the “…the great
prominence of the mother goddess in their pantheon and references to matriarchy among their
social institutions are quite un-Aryan features.” 53 We should note that the Phrygians belonged to
Thrace, which was quite close to Greece. Greek mythology incorporates several myths of
Thracian culture. This again challenges the very concept of migration or empire of IE speakers
into the Greek regions except of neighbouring tribes.

Little is known about the religious practices of the Mycenaeans’ though only a few texts depict
the name of Gods. A popular deity was Poseidon, (at the time probably associated with
earthquakes). Other important Gods included the Lady of the Labyrinth and Diwia (Sea
Goddess). Other members of the pantheon, evidence of which has been found, include Zeus-
Hera, Ares, Hermes, Athena, Artemis, Dionysus and Erinya. There are very few temples or
shrines where religious practices might have been exercised have been found. So, we can assume
that all rituals took place on open ground or in peak sanctuaries. Some shrines that have been
found had a tripartite structural design. Minoans had a strong influence on most of the religious
practices and rituals practiced by the Mycenaeans’. 54

The physical proof of the earliest Greek writing dates back to 7th century BC (Dipylon
Inscription), indicating that the Greeks knew the script even earlier to that, though it is said to be
adapted by the Greeks form Phoenicians to which they developed to fit the various dialects
spoken in different parts of Greece. 55 However, it should be noted that the Vedics were unaware
of the script of any kind. Rather, there is no cognate in the Rig Veda for writing or script. There is
not a single specimen of inscription that could even remotely belong to the Vedic language.

What does this indicate? None of such religious practices were followed by the Greeks that were
known to the Vedic Aryans or Zoroastrians. There is no parallel work like Avesta or Rig Veda in
Greek world of ancient times. Under such circumstances, how can they be the migrating branch
of the Indo-Europeans?

If from Dyous of Rig Veda evolved Greek Zeus, (And Jupiter from Greek Zeus-Pater) attributing
this to some common ancestor language would be unwise as though the phonetically Dyous term
could have been adapted by the Greeks as Zeus, but such derivation is unwarranted because
Dyous stands for bright sky in Rig Veda whereas Zeus is the God having every humanlike
character. 56 Hence, as we discussed earlier in this chapter, though the terms may have been
exchanged in remote past, they did not carry the same meaning or characters in the later era.

The word Deva seems to have been derived from Dyous but yet Devas of Rig Veda still remain
abstract, representatives of the cosmic powers. This only means that the words could have been
originated anywhere, among any tribe of ancient times, could have been shared by many but it
did not carry the same meaning everywhere. It rather got adapted by others their own way. The
meanings they took for the words couldn’t have remained same in the course of the time.

Germans
On the other hand, the Germans also claimed the Aryans to be a master race, Nordic in origin,
technologically advanced and destined to rule the world. But they used the Aryan term
exclusively for German superiority proposition.

Nazi theorist Alfred Rosenberg had determined that these people, who, he claimed, were
originally from Atlantis, were a dynamic warrior people who dwelt in prehistoric times in
northern climates on the North German Plain, from which they migrated riding their chariots
southeast, eventually reaching Ukraine, Iran, and then India. They were supposed to be the
ancestors of the ancient Germanic tribes, who shared their warrior values.

Rosenberg claimed that Christianity was an alien Semitic slave-morality inappropriate to the
warrior Aryan master race and thus supported a mélange of aspects of Hindu Vedic and
Zoroastrian teachings (both of these religions having been organised by Aryans), along with pre-
Christian European Odinistic paganism, which he also considered to be distinctively Aryan in
character. 57 J

Such was the Nazi Aryanism. However, though scarcely, Germany was populated since
prehistoric times; its history does not go back older than 750 BC. Germany has very little to offer
of its pre-history. According to Jill Claster, during the Roman Empire, Germania was enslaved
by Julius Caesar (1st BC) and continued be so almost till the fall of the Roman Empire. The
Germans came into contact with the Celts, Iranian and Baltic tribes in first century BC. 58

During pre-Christian era, Germanic (other Europeans too) people followed the pagan religion,
mostly being polytheistic. Wodan was their main god, most probably borrowed from Anglo-
Saxons to whom this god was known as Woden.

Julius Caesar writes in his commentary on Gauls (1st Century BC), “The Germans differ much
from these usages, for they have neither Druids to preside over sacred offices, nor do they pay
great regard to sacrifices. They rank in the number of the gods those alone whom they behold,
and by whose instrumentality they are obviously benefited, namely, the sun, fire, and the moon;
they have not heard of the other deities even by report.”

Further is the same commentary, he says, “They worship as their divinity, Mercury in particular,
and have many images of him, and regard him as the inventor of all arts, they consider him the
guide of their journeys and marches, and believe him to have great influence over the acquisition
of gain and mercantile transactions.” 59

Although scholars find this information contradictory with the other information coming from
other Germanic tribes, it is mostly accepted that the Wodan was identified by the Romans with
Mercury. Like Wodan Mercury was also a god of dead. The sign of the planet Mercury is
represented by Wednesday, i.e. Woden’s day. 60
Of prehistoric times, there is not much cultural advancement is seen, though the Europe was
populated since 20,000 BC by the modern species of the human being. The agriculture was
invented in the Neolithic era (C.7,000 BC), that helped the people to settle. However, the
development of urban living was as late as 140 BC to 300 AD. Rather Iron Age dawned in
Central Europe quite late, i.e. 800 BC. Not to forget here, Germany was lagging behind of rest of
the Europe in technological advances. 61

This brings us back to the same conclusion that the history of Germans does not support any
hypothetically migrated Aryan origin or Aryan influx in the Germanic cultural body. Rather, if
compared to other European countries, we find that the German civilisation is comparatively of
recent origin than them. If any cultural influence is on them at all is seen, it is of neighbouring
European countries and not of so called migrating Indo-Europeans.

This, as we can see clearly, shatters the very foundation of the Indo-European speakers’
migration theories. Erdosy after testing hypotheses derived from the linguistic evidence against
hypotheses derived from archeological data, states that there is no evidence of "As a result of the
investigation, some support was found in the archaeological record for small-scale migrations
from Central to South Asia in the late 3rd/early 2nd millennia BC, but any support for Burrow’s
2-wave model was firmly ruled out." 62 We have seen earlier in this chapter that the small scale
migrations from ancient times till today have been common phenomena. However, this fact does
not support what PIE migration theorists want to imply.

In fact, except for a few similarities between Zoroastrians and Vedics, the religious practices of
other so called Indo-European world seem to be far different. Mostly pagan religion was
practiced by the people of those times including Greeks. German history rather is, too, younger
compared to these countries. Why would there be such a big difference in religious and cultural
ideas of the people belonging to the single origin and location those took different directions to
impose their languages and culture? The single origin theory of the IE languages thus collapses
based on the material proofs!

This, above statement, rather means there could be migrations on small scale from anywhere and
in any direction, having different unknown motives, but not to the extent as to change linguistic
and cultural features of the natives wherever they migrated. Some tribes, after invention of the
agriculture, must have been roaming to search for suitable cultivatable land, must have waged
wars to capture fertile lands or would have been submissive to the powerful tribes. But after
10,000 BC till 7,000 BC, we find from archaeological evidences that the most of the tribes had
settled and even had established city states and empires by 5,000 BC. Agriculture thus had
changed the lifestyle of the nomads to a settled and easy that resulted in the explosion of the new
civilisations across the globe. 63

We can observe that the every region had and still has the peculiarities of its own language,
evolving and changing over the course of the time and changing needs of the time. Borrowing or
an exchange of any cultural element between neighbouring societies, too, is a common
phenomenon that we observe even today. The linguistic patterns mostly depend on the
environments and geography in which humane society evolves. The primordial rudimentary
vocabulary developed independently and accumulated from others, while on constant move,
must have become the basis of its systematic development owing to the drastically changed ways
of the life when settled. Finding hypothetical some similarities does not prove anyway its
provenance was owed to some single closely tied linguistic society and its migrations, as PIE
theorists like to believe.

The sole purpose of ‘Aryan Theory’ or IE Language family theory was and is to create a myth to
support cultural as well racial hegemony of Europeans and Indian Vedic people.

If we carefully probe into the above points, we can reach to the only conclusion that the Indo-
European migration theory has a very weak foundation. There was no major migration in India
or out of India or to Europe, after dawn of early settled civilisation. People largely lived in the
regions from pre-historical times as they are mostly living there. The movements of the human
beings became limited when the agriculture was invented at about 15,000 BC. We find from the
historical migrations that they were limited and to comparatively shorter distances. Though the
Vedic and the Avestan societies were mainly pastoral, they were settled groups, being semi-
agrarian. Their movements were limited to the periphery of their habitat. Known world to them
clearly appears in their respective religious texts. Both didn’t know the far away regions. Neither
the Avesta nor the Rig Veda has hints anywhere about the mass exodus of their ancestors or them
from one land to other lands. Almost all other regions those Zarathustra enumerates in Avesta are
identified and are within and outside of the boundaries of the present Iran. 64

The regions mentioned in the Rig Veda, too, indicate its geography in the close vicinity of
Avestans. The linguistic and religious similarities, whatever, between both the scriptures (Rig
Veda and Avesta) have no explanation other than their geographical closeness! No need of their
coming from far afar to stay together for centuries and again disperse in different directions! It
was not the case. It couldn’t have been the case because continuity of their religious practices is
not seen anywhere in the so called IE language speaking world.

Had it been the case of migrations, it would have reflected in their both the early religious
scriptures. Rather Persians, a conglomeration of several tribes, including Turanians (those are
mentioned in Avesta and Rig Veda) continued to live in the same region as they were living in
the Avestan times. Pakhtuns, Balochis, Persians, and Parthians etc, too, doesn’t seem to have
ever changed their respective locations. The Semeitc groups, too, don’t seem to have migrated
anywhere, deserting their lands, in unison in the noted history. There is no clue why then
so called Indo-Europeans should have deserted their homeland, whichever it was, into rest of the
Asia and Europe to cause linguistic and cultural impact on the already advanced societies?
Eventually, all their versions finally meet with the same arguments that they have no answer for.

The single location origin theory, in itself, is problematic and has been postulated by Western
scholars with political and supremacist intents. Spread of the technical terms (such as used in
Hurrian horse training manual) like numerals and colors and names ,too, find more prominent
spread and adaptation than other cultural aspects. Hence, finding such vague similarities
elsewhere does not necessitate the presence of the particular race speaking a certain dialect. In
fact, what we culturally and linguistically standing upon should be owed to our global ancestors
of remote past. We cannot credit any particular group of the people enforcing or spreading its so
called superior culture.

Hence, one language cannot claim the origin or mother of other languages as the language, in
itself, is an innate need of human being and the geographical conditions determine its
characteristics, how it develops and is pronounced and be expressed. One should not search for
the origin, rather, as we have discussed in this chapter, multi-location theory and the
considerable exchanges between early humanities only can help us to solve this riddle.

As stated earlier, migration theories are none but the outcome of superiority complex. Indo-
Europeans have carefully nourished it to prove their superiority to which Indian nationalists
(Vedicist folks) too fell for! No region or a group of the people have any right to claim any
culture being its independent innovation as no society was isolated from rest of the world.

Actually, the theory of ‘single location origin’ and subsequent spread is religiously (Biblically)
motivated and has been promoted extensively by Western scholars that takes us nowhere. PIE
theorists do not provide any conclusive proof of original Aryan habitat and their exact routs yet,
except for wild guesses presented with pseudo-scientific scholarship to amuse us.

We have also seen that the applying migration theories for spread of language and culture are
unscientific. Whatever migrations of small groups have taken place in the historic past hardly has
left permanent mark on the languages and cultures, extinguishing earlier traditions, wherever
they migrated. There was no any mighty race to subjugate rest of the later hypothetical IE world
to enforce languages and cultures over the vanquished. Neither archeological nor documented
history supports this hypothesis.

Bibliography

1. ‘Lectures on the Science of Languages’ (Vol. 1), by Friedrich Max Muller, Pub.: Longmans,
Green, And Company, 1866.
2. “Iranian Identity, the 'Aryan Race,' and Jake Gyllenhaal”, by REZA ZIA-EBRAHIMI, 2010,
Frontline. (Available online at
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/tehranbureau/2010/08/post-
2.html#ixzz3R87tvvn4)
3. ‘Lectures on the Science of the Language’ (Vol. 1), by Friedrich Max Muller, Pub.:
Longmans, Green, And Company, 1866, p. 226)
4. ‘In Search of Indo-Europeans’, by J. P. Mallory, Pub.: Thames & Hudson, 1989, p. 276
5. ‘Iranian Identity, the 'Aryan Race,' and Jake Gyllenhaal’, article by REZA ZIA-EBRAHIMI,
Frontline, August 2010.
6. ‘Lectures on the Science of the Language’ (Vol. 1), by Friedrich Max Muller, Pub.:
Longmans, Green, And Company, 1866, p. 225.
7. ‘Four Statements on the Race Question’, UNESCO Publication, 1969
8. ‘WORLD URBANIZATION: THE ROLE OF SETTLEMENT SYSTEMS IN HUMAN SOCIAL
EVOLUTION’, by C. K. Chase-Dunn, (Available online at: http://www.eolss.net/Sample-
Chapters/C04/E6-94-18.pdf)
9. “Changing Perspectives of the Indus Civilization: New Discoveries and Challenges!”, by
JONATHAN MARK KENOYER, Puratatva, Editor-K. N. Dixit, Number 41, 2011, Indian
Archeology Society, p. 4
10. ‘A Critique of the Out of Africa Model’, by Michael Maystadt (Illinois State University),
(Available online at:
http://soa.illinoisstate.edu/downloads/anthro_theses/a_critique_of_the_out_of_africa_model
.pdf)
11. ‘Powers and Prospects. Reflections on human nature and the social order’, by Noam
Chomsky, Pub.: London: Pluto Press, 1996, p. 30.
12. ‘Linguistics Across Historical and Geographical Boundaries’ , (Vol. 1), by Jerzy
Banczerowski, edited by Dieter Kastovsky, A. J. Szwedek, p. 19
13. History of Ancient Geography, by J. Oliver Thomson, Pub.: Cambridge University Press,
2013, p. 17.
14. ‘The AIT and scholarship', by Nicholas Kazanas, July 2001(Available online at:
http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~witzel/Kazanas.htm)
15. ‘The Geography of Genocide’, by Allan D. Cooper, 2008, p. 39
16. ‘Linguistics Across Historical and Geographical Boundaries’, by Jerzy Banczerowski , (Vol.
1),  edited by Dieter Kastovsky, A. J. Szwedek, Pub: Walter de Gruyter,Berlin, 1986, p. 15.
17. ‘Natural language and natural selection’, Pinker, S. & Bloom, P., Behavioral and Brain
Sciences 13(4): 707 ‐ 784, 1990. (Available at:
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.231.4056&rep=rep1&type=pdf)
18. ‘A Middle Palaeolithic human hyoid bone’, Arensburg B, Tillier AM, Vandermeersch B,
Duday H, Schepartz LA, Rak Y (April 1989), Nature 338 (6218): p. 758–60.)
19. Encyclopedia of Indo-European Culture, edited by J. P. Mallory, Douglas Q. Adams, Pub.:
Taylor & Francis, 1997, p. 414-15
20. Update on the Aryan Invasion Debate, by Koenraad Elst, Aditya Prakashan, 1999.
21. ‘The Rigveda : A Historical Analysis’, by Shrikant Talageri, Pub.: Aditya Prakashan, 2000,
see chapter 4 & 5.
22. ‘The Quest for the Origins of Vedic Culture: The Indo-Aryan Migration Debate’, by Edwin
Bryant, Pub.: Oxford University Press, 2001, p. 236
23. ‘Rig-Veda is Pre-Harappan,’ by Nicholas Kazanas, 2006, in Sanskrit Studies (Vol. 2), edited
by Wagish Shukla, New Delhi, Pub.: D.K. Printworld, 2007
24. ‘South Asian Archeology and the myth of Indo-Aryan Invasions’, by Jim G. Shaffer and
Diane A. Lichtenstein in ‘The Indo-Aryan Controversy: Evidence and inference in Indian
history’, edited by Edwin F. Bryant and Laurie A. Patton, 2005, Pub.: Routledge, p. 93
25. Quoted by Edwin Bryant in ‘The Quest for the Origins of Vedic Culture: The Indo-Aryan
Migration Debate’, by Edwin Bryant, Pub.: Oxford University Press, 2001, p. 160.
26. ‘Readings in Classical Chinese Philosophy’, edited by Philip J. Ivanhoe, Bryan W. Van
Norden (Second Edition), 2001, p. 331-32.
27. ‘Encyclopedia of Prehistory: Volume 8: South and Southwest Asia, Vol. 8’, edited by Peter
N. Peregrine, Melvin Ember, 2002, p. 32.
28. ‘The Horse, the Wheel, and Language: How Bronze-Age Riders from the Eurasian Steppes
Shaped the Modern World’, by David W. Anthony, Pub.: Princeton University, 2010, p. 437.
29. ‘The Ancient Indus Valley: New Perspectives’, by Jane McIntosh, Pub.: ABC- CLIO, 2008,
p. 166.
30. ‘Early Indian History: Linguistic and Textual Parameters’ by Michael Witzel in ‘The Indo-
Aryans of Ancient South Asia’, edited by George Erdosy, Pub.: Walter de Gryuter; Berlin,
1995, p. 114, including footnote.
31. ‘Early Sources for South Asian Substrate Languages’, by Michael Witzel in ‘MOTHER
TONGUE’, Special Issue, Oct. 1999. (Available online at:
http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~witzel/MT-Substrates.pdf)
32. ‘The Kurgan Culture and the Indo-Europeanization of Europe: Selected Articles from 1952
to 1993’, Marija Gimbutas, Edited by Miriam Robbins Dexter and Karlene Jones-Bley,
1997, Pub.: Journal of Indo-European Studies Monograph, p. 309.
33. ‘The Indo-Aryans of Ancient South Asia: Language, Material Culture and Ethnicity’, by
George Erdosy, Pub.: Walter de Gruyter, 1995, p. 12-13.
34. ‘A Short History of the Indo-European Problem’ by J. P.Mallory, Pub.: Journal of Indo-
European Studies 1, 1973, p. 21.
35. ‘Evolution and Prehistory: The Human Challenge’,  By William Haviland, Dana Walrath,
Harald Prins, Bunny McBride, Pub.: Cengage Learning, 2007, p. 192-94.
36. ‘Fossil Discovery Sheds New Light on Evolutionary History of Higher Primates’, by Leigh
Kish (Available see online at: http://www.carnegiemnh.org/press/pressrelease.aspx?
id=7982)
37. 'Out of Africa' theory of human evolution under fire, by Peter Spinks, dated August 25, 2014,
(Available online at: http://www.theage.com.au/national/education/out-of-africa-theory-of-
human-evolution-under-fire-20140824-106o5e.html)
38. ‘A Critique of the Out of Africa Model (13.11.2007)’, by Michael Maystadt, Illinois State
University, (Available online at:
http://soa.illinoisstate.edu/downloads/anthro_theses/a_critique_of_the_out_of_africa_model
.pdf)
39. Reported by Steven Strong in an article “DNA Evidence Debunks the “Out-of-Africa”
Theory of Human Evolution” published in “Wake Up World”. (Available online at:
http://wakeup-world.com/2013/12/16/dna-evidence-debunks-the-out-of-africa-theory-of-
human-evolution/)
40. ‘The Kikkuli Text: Hittite Training Instructions for Chariot Horses in the Second Half of the
2nd Millennium B.C. and Their Interdisciplinary Context’, by Peter RAULWING, December
 2009, page 6, (Available online at:
http://www.academia.edu/3039204/The_Kikkuli_Text._Hittite_Training_Instructions_for_Ch
ariot_Horses_in_the_Second_Half_of_the_2nd_Millennium_B.C._and_Their_Interdisciplina
ry_Context)
41. ‘History of Zoroastrianism, Vol. I, The early period’, by Mary Boyce, Pub.: Brill, 1996, p.
63.
42. ‘Rig-Veda-Sanhita: A Collection of Ancient Hindu Hymns’ by H. H. Vilson, second edition,
Pub.: N. Trubner and Co., 1866, p. 142-43.
43. ‘Letters from the Hittite Kingdom’, by Harry A. Hoffner, Pub.: Society of Biblical Literature,
2009.
44. ‘Letters of the Great Kings of the Ancient Near East: The Royal Correspondence of the Late
Bronze Age’, By Trevor Bryce, Paperback, Pub.: Routledge, 2014.
45. ‘The Roman Cult of Mithras: The God and His Mysteries’, By Manfred Clauss, Trans. by
Richard Gordon, Pub.: Routledge, 2001.
46. ‘In Search Of Zarathustra: The Prophet and the Ideas that Changed the World’, by Paul
Kriwaczek, Pub.: Hachette, 2011.
47. ‘The Rulling Races of prehistoric times in India’, by James Francis Katherinus Hewitt, 1894,
Pub.: A. Constable, p. 362.
48. ‘The Civilized Demons: The Harappans in Rigveda’, by Malati J. Shendge, Pub.: Abhinav
Publications, 1977. (Available online at: http://www.academia.edu/642012/The_Indo-
European_Elements_In_Hurrian)
49. ‘Some Aspects of Ancient Indian Culture’, by D. R. Bhandarkar, Pub.: Asian Educational
Services, Reprint 1989, p. 32-34, )
50. ‘The Horse, the Wheel, and Language: How Bronze-Age Riders from the Eurasian Steppes
Shaped the modern world’, by David W. Anthony, Pub.: Princeton University Press, 2007, p.
34 and 59-77)
51. ‘The Spartans: An Epic History’, by Paul Cartledge, 2003, Pub.: Overlook Press, New York,
p. 45.
52. ‘The Aryans: A Study of Indo-European Origins’, V Gordon Childe, 1926, page 45.
53. Ibid, page 63.
54. “MYCENAEAN AGE (1600 - 1100 BC)” (More available at:
http://www.ancientgreece.com/s/Mycenaean/)
55. ‘Greek Inscriptions’, by B. F. Cook, Pub.: University of California Press, 1987, p. 9.
56. ‘The Imperial Dictionary of the English Language : A Complete Encyclopedic Lexicon,
Literary, Scientific, and Technological’, (Vol. 2), by John Ogilvie, Edited by Charles
Annandale, Pub.: Blackie & Son - The University of Michigan, 1883, p. 116.
57. ‘Myth of the 20th Century : An Evaluation of the Spiritual-Intellectual Confrontations of Our
Age’, by Alfred Rosenberg, Pub.: Invictus Books, reprint 201.
58. ‘Medieval Experience: 300-1400”, by Jill N. Claster, Pub.: New York University Press, 1982
59. ‘Caesar’s Commentaries on the Gallic war’, by Julius Caesar, Charles Anthon, Pub.:
Harper & Brothers, 1862.
60. ‘The Cambridge Planetary Handbook’, by Michael E. Bakich, Pub.: Cambridge University
Press, 2000, p. 85.
61. ‘Prehistoric Europe: Theory and Practice’, edited by Andrew Jones, Pub.: Blackwell
Publishing Ltd., 2008.
62. ‘The Indo-Aryans of Ancient South Asia: Language, Material Culture and Ethnicity’, edited
by George Erdosy, Pub.: Walter de Gruyter & Co., 1995, p. 23.
63. ‘ANCIENT CIVILIZATIONS: The requirements and patterns to development’, edited by
Robert Guisepi, International World History Project, Available online at: http://history-
world.org/ancient_civilization.htm)
64. ‘Zoroaster’s Time and Homeland: A Study on the Origins of Mazdaism and Related
Problems’, by Gherardo Gnoly, Istituto Universitario Orientale. Seminario di studi Asiatici,
Series Minor, VII, Naples, 1980.

Additional Notes:

A. Max Muller had stated, “ To me, an ethnologist who speaks of Aryan race, Aryan
blood, Aryan eyes and hair, is as great a sinner as a linguist who speaks of a
dolichocephalic dictionary or a brachycephalic grammar …If I say Aryans, I mean
neither blood, nor bones , nor hair, nor skull. I mean those who speak an Aryan
language.” (‘Biographies of Words and the Home of the Aryas’, by F. Max Muller,
Pub.: Kessinger Publishing, 1888, reprint 2004, p. 120.)
B. French diplomat and writer, Compte Arthur Joseph de Gobineau seized the racial
aspect of the term in 1850. He wrote down a book, ‘The inequality of Human Races’ to
prove that only white race was one with creative ability. Very soon, by European
scholars of different countries began the attempts to identify whether the Aryans were
Nordics, Alpines, Caucasoid or Teutonic, to claim the Aryan inheritance. The concept
soon reached America, where it was popularized by Madison Grant through his book,
‘The Passing of the Great Race’ in 1916. However, the Nordic Aryan myth had already
been debunked by William Z. Ripley in his ‘The Races of Europe’ in 1899. In India,
Lokmanya B. G. Tilak wrote ‘Arctic Home in the Vedas’ in 1898, which was published
later in 1903. He claimed that the Aryans home was at North Pole during the pre-glacial
period. The theory took many turns, giving rise to the rival aboriginal theories causing
socio-cultural divide on racial basis in India and other countries as well. Presently
Indian Videcist scholars are claiming India to be the homeland of the Vedic Aryans. If
we go through all the theories pertaining to this issue, it will appear that whether
Europeans or Vedic Indians, the supremacist notions are stronger forces behind the
facades of this so-called Indo-European scholarship.
C. K. Kennedy (1984) had an opportunity to examine about 300 skeletons that had been
retrieved from Indus Valley Civilisation. He found that the ancient Harappans “are not
markedly different in their skeletal biology from present-day inhabitants of
Northwestern India and Pakistan.” There have been no detectable traces of any
 intruding foreign elements in IGVC, either culturally or genetically. It alone defeats the
motives of the propagators of migration theories. (See ‘The Quest for the Origins of
Vedic Culture: The Indo-Aryan Migration Debate’, By Edwin Bryant, Pub.: Oxford
University Press, 2001, p. 230)
D. “At the end of the Old Kingdom, the walls of the inner chambers and corridors of
ancient Egyptian pyramids were inscribed with a series of ritual and magical spells,
known to modern scholarship as Pyramid Texts. These inscriptions constitute the oldest
body of Egyptian religious writings; usually literary in form and language, they are also
the oldest representatives of oldest Egyptian literature.” (‘The Ancient Egyptian
Pyramid Texts’, by James P. Allen, Pub.: Society of Biblical Literature, 2007, p. 1)
E. According to Talageri, it is evidenced from the Rig Veda that the Aryans moved from
east to west, from Haryana towards Iran and Europe. He cites self-defined chronology
of the River names appearing in various Mandala’s of early to late part of the Rig Veda
and implies that the changing graph of the river names shows that the Aryan movement
from east to west began after the time of King Sudasa. Talageri states in his book, “Rig
Veda” A Historical Analysis, “In the Early period, right from pre-Rig Vedic times to
the time of SudAs, the Vedic Aryans were settled in the area to the east of the Punjab:
MaNDala VI knows of no river to the west of the SarasvatI.” (See chapter 4, titled as
“The Geography of the Rig Veda”).
F. Lincoln in this regards observes, “The Andronovo people remained well behind the
civilizations that flourished at that time both in East and West. These were the days
when the Egyptians built the first pyramids and when Babylonia’s king Hammurabi
wrote his famed code of laws. The third dynasty of Ur had already passed into history
by the time the Andronovo people appeared on history’s stage.” (‘The Conquest of a
Continent: Siberia and the Russians’, by W. Bruce Lincoln, Pub.: Cornel University
Press, 2007, p. 49)
G. A note of caution here is that various theories propose different geographical
homelands and have been adjusting timelines of migration dates so often to suite their
modified versions. I have assumed generally accepted dates for proposed migrations.
The homeland quest demands geographically single location from where the so-called
Aryan languages and culture spread. Kennedy takes stock of all the theories and opines
that, 1) specific Indian prehistoric cultures and their geographical regions are not
identifiable as Aryan and 2) The human skeletal remains discovered from burial
deposits are not distinctive than non-Aryan skeletal series. This would indicate that in
fact there could not have been a race or ethnic group, which is assumed to be Aryan or
Proto-Indo-European that became instrumental to spread certain language that was
superior over others. Kennedy finally raises a serious question, “How could one
recognize an Aryan, living or dead, when the biological criteria Aryanness are non-
existent?” (See: ‘Have Aryans been identified in the prehistoric skeletal record from
South Asia?’, by Kenneth A. & R. Kennedy in ‘The Indo-Aryans of Ancient South Asia:
Language, Material Culture and Ethnicity’, edited by George Erdosy, 1995, p. 39-61.
H. Although Lal’s approach in ‘Can the Vedic people be identified archaeologically? An
approach’ is Indocentric and he has been controversial many a times for twisting the
facts, the find, if genuine, only proves that the spoke-wheels were not unknown to the
Indus people. It does not mean at all that the authors of IGVC were Vedic Aryans, but
adaptations from others or independent innovations in the technologies were quite
common in ancient world. (‘Can the Vedic people be identified archaeologically? An
approach’, by B. B. Lal, p. 193. Available online at:
http://www.indologica.com/volumes/vol31/07_Lal.pdf
I. Prof. Roth, Whitney and M. Darmesteter strongly identify Asura Varuna with
Ahuramazda. (See page 290.) Many also identify Varuna with Varena of Vendidad.
Varena is the fourteenth good land created by Ahura Mazda. (page 289) This shows the
common faith in the early Vedic and Avestan times. (Ref: Journal of the Transactions
of the Victoria Institute, Or Philosophical Society of Great Britain, Volume 13 (Google
eBook) Victoria Institute, 1880. Vol. 13)

Here we clearly see that the forced attempts to identify Asura Varuna of Rig Veda with
Ahur Mazda or a region named Varena may not be at all correct. Mazda is often
equated with Vedic “medha”, intellect. Still that would only mean that the “medha”
was pronounced as “mazda” in Avestan language, but “medha” is no deity of any
significance in Rig Veda.
J. J. Alfred Rosenberg (1893–1946) was an early and intellectually influential member of
the Nazi Party. Born in what was then Russia (now part of Estonia) of Baltic Germans,
his family fled the Russian Revolution during which time he became strongly anti-
Semitic because of the preponderant Jewish role in that uprising and resultant Red
Terror. He was appointed editor of the Nazi Party’s newspaper in 1923, and was elected
to the Reichstag in 1930 and in 1933 was appointed head of the Nazi Party's foreign
political office. Following the invasion of the USSR, Rosenberg was appointed head of
the Reich Ministry for the Occupied Eastern Territories, a position he held until his
arrest in 1945 by the Allies. He was executed in 1945. (Text from paperback edition,
see: ‘Myth of the 20th Century : An Evaluation of the Spiritual-Intellectual
Confrontations of Our Age’, ” by Alfred Rosenberg, Pub.: Invictus Books, reprint
2001.)
 Chapter 2
Saraswati and Ghaggar issue!
Of late, the Ghaggar-Hakra river has become a centre of prime attraction and fascination for
many reasons. With emboldened enthuasism, some Indian as well European scholars are
vehemently identifying the Ghaggar river with the lost river Saraswati of Rig Veda. Rather, they
have started calling the Indus-Ghaggar civilisation as ‘Indus-Saraswati Civilisation.’ Saraswati
river could have been lost to some, but the Ghaggar was never. The Ghaggar has been a small
and ordinary river that became seasonal from about 1750 BC onwards as monsoons weakened.

After 1970, however, satellite images started indicating that the Ghaggar was a large river in the
remote past. A hypothesis was put forth that because of the tectonic shifts, its tributaries changed
their channels thus limiting its water flow. This finding and hypothesis naturally boosted the
moral of Vedic scholars and they started claiming that the Ghaggar was the ancient lost river
Saraswati. They thought they had solved the riddle of Indus culture by assigning it to the Vedic
people as founders!

In fact, the attempts to equate the Ghaggar with the Saraswati had begun in 1874. CF Oldham
was the first one to correlate the textual descriptions of the Saraswati with palaeology of the
Ghaggar-Hakra. Later, Sir Aurel Stein who had explored the Ghaggar-Hakra basin on his
archaeological mission of 1940-41 joined in and identified the Ghaggar-Hakra with the
Saraswati. 1

However, as streams of satellite images that showed dry beds and palaeo-channels of the rivers
started pouring in from the LANDSAT satellite during 1972-79, the claims were staked more
strongly.

Mr. Ashoke Mukherjee stated, “….But and interested circle, among whom there are some
professional scientists and historians, has seized upon some of these satellite images and lodged
a claim in public as well as professional forums that the lost channel of the Saraswati river has
been discovered. This, they further claimed, proved that the Vedic narratives are not mere
mythologies, but refer to real and historical entities.” 2 A

Actually, this identification was not new. Though it is a seasonal river, the Ghaggar, till date,
flows, though the lower part, known as Hakkra, which runs in present Pakistan where it dries up
completely in the deserts. Nevertheless, the claim that the lost Saraswati has ultimately been
found was kept pushing forth in public domain with ulterior motives and renewed enthusiasm.B

This claim and finds of large-scale Indus sites led to the vigorous research by teams of eminent
geologists of the world wanting to find out the provenance of the ancient river system in the
riverbed of the Ghaggar and the palaeo-channels. Instead of venturing into much technical
jargon, let us understand what the latest findings are and ascertain whether they can be linked
with the Vedic Saraswati river.

First of all, we must keep it in the mind that the Saraswati is described in the Rig Veda as a river
that is fierce (RV 6:62:7), swifter than others, roaring, and bursting the edges of the hills with its
strong waves (all in RV 6:61), flowing from threefold sources in the mountains to the ‘samudra’
(7:95), passing through many kingdoms (RV 8:21:18).

Keeping in view this Rig Vedic description of the Saraswati river, now let us have a look at the
findings and observations made by the Japanese team that worked for almost five years
conducting large scale investigations in the basin of the Ghaggar and adjoining rivers. These
findings and observations have been presented in a paper in 2013 by geologists Hideaki
Maemoku et al. as follows:

The width of the Ghaggar floodplain is much smaller than that of other glacial fed rivers like
Indus and its tributaries.

1. Most of the sand dunes accompanying the Choutang and the Ghaggar on either side of
the floodplain are as old as 10,000 to 15,000 years. They did exist during the mature
Harappan period and continue to grow till present.
2. The results are supported by the habitation layers on the sand dunes dating back to the
mature Harappan period and by the Harappan sites occurring in its present floodplain.
3. The Ghaggar did not experience drastic changes in water discharge during the Harappan
period.
4. The Ghaggar was not glacial fed river anytime.
5. The mythical Saraswati did not exist in the Ghaggar basin as a glacial-fed large river,
such as the Indus and its tributaries, as described in the Vedas, at least during the mature
Harappan period. 3

These are the latest findings of the Japanese team. However, many scholars, intentionally or by
sheer misunderstanding on their part, have leapt to the conclusion that if the riverbed of the
Ghaggar was as wide as 8 kilometres at some places, it must have been a mighty river in the past.
The fact is that the width corresponds to the floodplain and not to the riverbed as much touted by
the Vedicist scholars. The floodplain width of Himalayan fed rivers ranges from 10 to 20
kilometres whereas Ghaggar’s average floodplain is only 5 kilometres wide. Its maximum
floodplain width has been documented to be to the extent of 8 kilometres at some places in
Rajasthan. It is agreed by Sridhar et al. (1999) that ephemeral rivers often have wider floodplains
because of the shallow riverbed.4

The satellite imagery had shown the width of floodplains and not the riverbeds. Actual fieldwork
exposes the difference between riverbed and floodplain of the Ghaggar river. The Ghaggar
experienced severe floods in past, as recent as in 1988, 1993, 1995, 2010 and 2013. Except for
the summer showers, normally, Ghaggar is a dry river just like other monsoon fed rivers.
Many small archeological sites have been found in the floodplain of the Ghaggar. It means the
Harappan people never suffered from the devastating floods ever since they settled there, state
Giosan et al. 5

Had the river suffered frequent devastating floods during the Harappan period, there would not
have been any human settlements in the floodplain. Occurrence of the floods might have been a
phenomena witnessed once in several decades. Moreover, this also indicates that the Ghaggar
river almost flowed in the same order as it does today, though it was perennial river during the
Harappan times because of the wet phase of the monsoon.

Giosan et al. further state that, “This widespread fluvial redistribution of sediment suggests that
reliable monsoon rains were able to sustain perennial rivers earlier during the Holocene (10,000
BC and later) and explains why the Harappan settlements flourished along the entire Ghaggar-
Hakra system without an access to a glacier-fed river.”

Giosan et al. states affirmatively, “…Contrary to earlier assumptions that a large glacier-fed
Himalayan river identified by some with the mythical Saraswati watered the Harappan heartland
on the interfluves between the Indus and Ganges basins, we show that only monsoonal-fed rivers
were active there during the Holocene. As the monsoon weakened, monsoonal rivers gradually
dried or became seasonal, affecting habitability along their courses. Hydroclimatic stress
increased the vulnerability of agricultural production supporting the Harappan urbanism, leading
to settlement downsizing, diversification of crops, and a drastic increase in settlements in the
moister monsoon regions of the upper Punjab, Haryana, and Uttar Pradesh.” 6

From abovementioned facts, it is clear that the Ghaggar was not the Himalayan snow-fed river.
The monsoons were stronger in Harappan period, which sustained the flow of river round the
year. However, because of the climatic changes, the monsoon precipitation started reducing
during the late Harappan period. The chronology of the climatic changes in north-west India has
been recorded in following order:

6,200 BC – 4,000 BC: Wet Phase

4,100 BC – 3,800 BC: Dry Phase

3,800 BC – 2,200 BC: Wet Phase

2,200 BC - till date: Wet Phase begins to decline. 7

From this data, it can be surmised that the dry and wet phases have occurred in the Northwestern
region alternatively after almost every thousand or more years. Of course, it does not mean that
the wet phase remained wetter throughout or dry phase remained drier throughout. The rise or
drop in the average rainfall must have influenced the human settlements in the region.
However, the studies suggest that the decline of the Harappa civilisation was a gradual process
and that it did not occur suddenly due to drastic natural or social events. This gradual decline
resulted in disintegration of trade network connected with different regions of Indus society, thus
affecting the economy as well.8The economic patterns do change accordingly to sustain
populations. It also includes change in production patterns and lifestyle. One cannot expect to
continue the same pattern over a long period. The scholars’ argument that the emergence of
painted grey-ware culture (1,200 or 1,400 BC) occurred after decline of IGVC which took
around 1,700 BC and did not impact with the IGVC in any manner does not mean that the people
who were its makers changed but merely shows that the patterns had changed. Ascribing Painted
Grey Ware (PGW) Culture to the intruders is also a bold inference derived from the
archaeological findings of this period. We will see in next chapters that PGW culture did not
show any discontinuity from earlier pottery making patterns but a gradual replacement of the
earlier technology.

Apart from the climate, there might have been other reasons for decline in trade such as
recession in the domestic Indus and foreign markets because of political or climatic reasons. The
world history is witness of such phases of rise and decline occurring periodically in every
flourishing civilisation. McIntosh asserts that the patterns of sea trade through the Gulf altered as
Mesopotamia experienced political and economic upheavals from around 2,000 BCE, causing a
major retraction in its trade. 9

However, from archeological evidence, it appears that around 1,700 BC, the Harappan
settlements gradually started to decline and had to be abandoned later on because the climatic
changes made the agriculture unsustainable. However, the people did not desert the IGVC
regions but just changed their settlement patterns. Regional cultures started occurring after the
decline of urbanised culture, the manufacturing patterns did change, trade routes did change and
so some of the practices related with the trade too did change. However influence of Indus-
Ghaggar remained in varying degree.

Jane McIntosh, about climate change, asserts that, “The late third millennium BCE saw a global
increase in aridity that had a serious impact on the civilisations of Egypt and Mesopotamia and
on the Hrappans’ neighbors in Seistan. The effect in the Indus region was to decrease the
reliability of the summer monsoons, and, paradoxically, to increase winter rainfall, neither of
which had a serious impact on Harappan agriculture, although it may have encouraged
diversification.” 10

The global climatic change thus seems to have affected to some or more extent the global
civilisations. The demand patterns of the era of stability do not stand the same when the adverse
conditions do occur. People try to adjust with the changed socio-economical environments but
do not desert the homeland.

During the mature Harappan era, though the Ghaggar was a stable river, it was never a large
river as interpreted by some scholars from the width of her floodplain. Since the riverbed of the
Ghaggar was shallow and still remains so, the question of it being Saraswati described as a
mighty river bursting with her strong waves in Rig Veda does not arise. Such was the importance
of Rig Veda Saraswati for Vedic seers that they deified her. It was the most prominent river for
them and was considered as ‘Ambitame’ (Dearest Mother) by them. Many praiseworthy
sacrifices took place on her bank and she sustained the Rig Vedic clan with her abundant
blessings. Rather, we can infer the culture of Rig Veda to be Saraswati centric.

However, the Ghaggar river nowhere matches the Rig Vedic descriptions on geological grounds.
The empirical proofs stand opposite to the Vedicist scholars notions that the Ghaggar was a
perennial river when Yamuna and Satlej were feeding into it, thus making the Ghaggar a mighty
river. Most of the times Vedicist scholars attribute change in the course of the Yamuna and Satlej
rivers to the tectonic shifts. The Yamuna, as it appears from the LANDSAT images, have
changed her course thrice in the past. However, no tectonic shift has been geologically recorded
in all explorations in the Ghaggar-Yamuna basins to cause any change in the channels.

However, Bryant remarks based on findings of Francfort of the French expedition in regards
with assumed “immense perennial river Saraswati”, states that, “The team included a strong geo-
archaeological element that concluded that the actual large paleo courses of the river have been
dry since the early Holocene period or even earlier (Francfort 1985, 260). Ironically, the findings
of the French team have served to reinforce the “mythico-religious tradition of Vedic origins.”
Rajaram's reaction (1995) to the team's much earlier date assigned to the perennial river is that
“this can only mean that the great Sarasvati that flowed ‘from the mountain to the sea’ must
belong to a much earlier epoch, to a date well before 3000 bce”. 11

From this, we can easily understand the sentiments of the hardcore Vedicists those twist any
proof to make their claim strong over indigenous Aryan scenario. Let us not forget here that
Holocene period started by 11500 to 12000 years ago. Francfort has indicated, since early
Holocene or even earlier, the Ghaggar have been comparatively a lesser river, not mighty as Rig
Veda indicates. Still let us see whether or not Yamuna and Satlej ever fed into Ghaggar.

WHEN DID YAMUNA AND SATLEJ CHANGE THEIR COURSE?

It is widely assumed by the Indian scholars that during the Harappan Phase, Yamuna and Satlej
used to be tributaries of the Ghaggar river. It is said that the Yamuna and Satlej added ample
water in the Ghaggar channel and made it a mighty river. This assumption has been derived from
the satellite images that show the palaeo-channels of both the rivers. However, the satellite
images do not define the minute topography and geological age of the river channels.

Did Satlej and Yamuna ever flow in the channel of the Ghaggar? We need to consider opinions
of various scholars in this regard.

According to ‘Current Science’ report (2004) contributed by Indian and German scientists, “...the
Saraswati did not carry glacier waters. The Ghaggar-Hakra area does not show mineral deposit
of Himalayan glaciers, and thus it could not be a big, perennial, glacier fed river, but, rather, a
smaller, seasonal, monsoon fed one. Based on sediment geochemistry and composition and
geomorphologic and palaeoclimatic constraints that the Ghaggar-Hakra river was likely always
Siwalik fed.”
Further, the report adds, “The suggestion of glacial sources and the Yamuna and Satluj rivers
draining to the river Saraswati through Ghaggar before they were pirated by the Ganga and Indus
respectively, are not supported by our isotopic data. If these hypotheses were correct, we would
expect to find sediments derived from the Higher Himalayas in the Thar. Our data also do not
support the idea that there was a change in the source area for the Ghaggar from a glaciated
region to rainfall region.” 12

The report emphatically states that the Satlej and Yamuna being the tributaries of the Ghaggar,
even in the remote past is a myth nourished by scholars neglecting the vital proof. According to
the same report, the waning of the Ghaggar was only because of the declining of the rains, which
was a gradual process, and not because of the capture of its tributaries by the other rivers or any
tectonic events.

This means Satlej and Yamuna were never tributaries of Ghaggar, or at the least they were not
feeding Ghaggar during the Harappan times, if taken into the considerations the other reports.
Satlej and Yamuna are glacial fed rivers. Had they been feeding the Ghaggar in the past, the
glacial mineral traces would have been detected in the sediments of the Ghaggar channel, but
that is not the case according to the above-mentioned report. Rather, mighty rivers such as Satlej
and Yamuna feeding a moderately small river even in the remote, pre-Harappan, past is a
ridiculous idea.

In a research paper, published in “Geology”, Peter D Clift et al states, “…although loss of the
Yamuna from the Indus is likely to have occurred as early as 49 ka and no later than 10 ka.
Capture of the Yamuna to the east and the Sutlej to the north rerouted water away from the area
of the Harappan centers, but this change significantly predated their final collapse…...
Throughout the Holocene, including the Harappan period this river was fed only by seasonal
monsoon rain in the east. This rain-fed Ghaggar-Hakra was active until after 4.5 ka and was then
covered by dunes before 1.4 ka. What this means is that the Ghaggar-Hakra, unlike any of the
major Indus tributaries, was not fed by snow melt, which begins in Spring and may be
unpredictable, but was entirely reliant on swelling its banks from the summer monsoon.” 13

According to Sanjeev Gupta (Imperial College London), the river sediments ceased in the tract
of the palaeo channel after 14,000 BCE, long before the Indus civilisation era had began. He
reached this conclusion after his team did extensive drilling in the 30-40 m thick sand body in
the subsurface beneath a tract of the Ghaggar-Hakra palaeochannel adjacent to the Indus city of
Kalibangan.14

The Project Palaeo-Environmental Research Group -- FB conducted field research and analysis
of satellite imagery to identify the former course of the Ghaggar river and determined the causes
and the dates of its avulsion. Contrary to its description in the Rig Veda text, field evidence
demonstrates that the Ghaggar was not a large river, but a small one capable of providing water
for agriculture only during the monsoon season.15

Sedimentary Geologist Suvrat Kher, referring to the research of Clift and his colleagues, states
on his blog that the Yamuna and Satlej stopped feeding the Ghaggar long before 50,000 and
10,000 years respectively. While doing in-depth analysis of the critical issue, he clearly states
that, “…I have stressed that this attempt to link a hypothesis of a mighty Saraswati to the
presence of Aryans is misguided and the one that has caused harm to the public understanding of
the topic and to what constitutes good science. Many geologists and archaeologists accepted the
validity of a glacial Saraswati without critically weighing the evidence. Taking their cue, in web
forums and books, supporters of a glacial Sarasvati have popularised the hypothesis of a late
river avulsion and often presented it as irrefutable evidence favoring the indigenous Aryan
theory.” 16 This statement speaks for itself.

The research paper published in “The current Science” which was mentioned earlier, also
concludes that, ‘If the snowline did not drop to the Sub-Himalayan ranges even during
glaciations and the glaciers continuously occurred only in the HHC, a higher rainfall for the huge
erosion of Sub-Himalayan lithologies and to sustain the rivers was essential. Our isotope data
provide a scientific basis for the absence of a glacial-fed, perennial Himalayan river in the
Harappan domain, i.e. the River Ghaggar is not the Saraswati as far as its origin in the glaciated
Himalayas is concerned.” 17

From the abovementioned facts, we can conclude the following:

1. The Ghaggar is not the mythical river Saraswati.

2. The possibility of the mighty Satlej and Yamuna being the tributaries of the
comparatively minor monsoon-fed rivers is unlikely.
3. Even if considered, though unlikely, that the Satlej and Yamuna were flowing through
the Ghaggar Channel before they changed their course, it was quite long before when
even the early phase of the Harappa culture had began.
4. The decline of the Harappan culture was gradual for several centuries due to the climatic
changes and was not a sudden event as thought by some scholars.
5. At the least, equating the Ghaggar with Saraswati cannot become the basis of indigenous
Aryan theory.

It appears that the problem with some was also to find anyhow the location of the Vedic people
in the vicinity of IGVC sites to stake the big claim that they were authors of the magnificent
civilisation. Scholars like Kazanas seriously try to place the date of the Rig Veda in third
millennium BC to coincide with the previously supposed date of Yamuna and Satlej changing
their course, but the hypothesis is ridiculous in the light of the geological findings. 18 C

For the time being, let us leave aside the geological proof, which clearly indicates that the
Ghaggar could never have been Rig Vedic Saraswati, and consider different other points of view
as to why the Ghaggar could not have been Saraswati.

In addition, we have already discussed that the Ghaggar river never was a lost river, like
Saraswati. It always flowed, though seasonably, in summer showers, though its water discharge
had reduced considerably because of the weak monsoons. Desertion of the Harappan sites was a
gradual process that might have continued intermittently over hundreds of years. No foreign
aggression or sudden natural or social calamity in the vicinity has been recorded. Still there are
other socio-cultural evidences as well which misfits the Ghaggar as a candidate for being the lost
Saraswati.

Other aspects

We have seen that the Rig Vedic description of the Sarasvati river also goes contrary to the
identification of Ghaggar as Saraswati. The Vedic scholarship obviously neglected vital socio-
cultural factors associated with their blatant claim as well. They did not pay any heed to or
misinterpreted the scientific explorations conducted at the Ghaggar system and their results.
They even neglected Vedic descriptions of Saraswati.

Even if the changes that occurred in the channels of the ancient rivers like Satalej and Yamuna
are considered, they neglected the fact that the Vedic Saraswati does not fit into the picture for
the reasons discussed earlier. Moreover, the Sarasvati was a far prominent river of the Rig Veda
over even the majestic rivers like Satlej and Yamuna. Rajesh Kochhar observes, “In the region of
the Rig Vedic Sarasvati, there are other companion rivers which flow to the sea independently.
The Ghaggar region does not fulfill this condition either. Rivers to its East join the Ganga while
those to the West join the Indus.” 19 Rig Vedic Saraswati feeds Samudra (ocean or lake), however
Ghaggar doesn’t! (RV 7.95.1-2)

It is often claimed that in Nadistuti (Ode to rivers) hymn (RV 10.75), Saraswati is placed
between Yamuna and Shutudri (Satlej) and only the Ghaggar meets that geographical order. Let
us not forget here that almost 19 rivers enumerated in this particular hymn mostly include the
rivers of Afghanistan as well. The related verses of the hymn read as bellow-

“imaṃ me ghaṅghe yamune sarasvati śutudri stemaṃ sacatā paruṣṇyā |

asiknyā marudvṛdhe vitastayārjīkīye śṛṇuhyāsuṣomayā ||
tṛṣṭāmayā prathamaṃ yātave sajūḥ sasartvā rasayāśvetyā tyā |
tvaṃ sindho kubhayā ghomatīṃ krumummehatnvā sarathaṃ yābhirīyase ||”

Griffith translates the above as under-

“O Ganga, Yamuna, Sarasvati, Shutudri (Sutlej), Parushni (Iravati, Ravi), follow my praise! O
Asikni (Chenab) Marudvridha, Vitasta (Jhelum), with the Arjikiya (Haro) and Sushoma (Sohan),
listen!
“First united with the Trishtama in order to flow, with the Susartu and Rasa, and with this
Svetya (you flow), O Sindhu (Indus) with the Kubha (Kabul R.) to the Gomati (Gomal), with the
Mehatnu to the Krumu (Kurram), with whom you rush together on the same chariot.”

Nadistuti Hymn has been much discussed and relied upon by Indologists and yet there have been
most conflicting opinions over it. Firstly, the scholars are unanimous on 10th Mandala being the
last and youngest part of Rig Veda, mostly assuming that this Mandala has been composed when
Indo-Aryans had settled near river Ganga. The first and only conclusive mention of river Ganga
appears to be in this hymn. Moreover, most importantly, though the rivers mentioned in it are
thought to be enumerated from East to West, there are some rivers whose identities are yet not
clear. Of the identifiable rivers, Kubha (Kabul), Gomati (Gomal) and Krumu (Kurram) are not
arranged in their geographical order. If the purpose of the composer of this Hymn was anyway to
suggest geographical chronology of the rivers, the right order would have been, Gomal, Kubha
and Kurram or vice versa and not as has been mentioned in the Hymn. Arjikiya, Sushoma,
Trishtama and Svetya (Suvastu), too, are mentioned in wrong geographical order in the Hymn.
Rather there almost the consensus is the river Rasa (Avestan Ranha) is Tigris of east
Mesopotamia. It would become far off river if this hymn is considered to be enumerating rivers
east to west.

The serious anomaly in the hymn is if Asikni is identified with Chenab and Vitasta with Jhelum,
there is a river enumerated between them is Marudvridha. However, there simply is no river
between the two. There not an iota of any geological evidence that any lost river ever flowed
between these two rivers!

Based on this hymn and supposed chronological identifications of the rivers, the hypothesis was
forwarded that the migrating Aryans had advanced and settled in the Gangetic planes when this
hymn was composed. But there is a serious problem because there is not a single proof to
indicate that the rivers like Vitasta, Parushni, Asikni are present Jhelum, Ravi and Chenab
respectively! D No matter in what a corrupt form these rivers are known today, but certainly are
not corruptions of Rig Vedic names. Ravi is corrupt form of its original name Iravati. Chenab is
formed after its original name Chandrabhaga. Since we have ruled out any possibility of invasion
or migration to India, and most of the identifiable rivers are of Afghanistan origin, even if in
corrupt forms, still are identifiable. However, Indian rivers changing their names to such a
drastic proposition, including Sarswati to the Ghaggar, is quite improbable. Since Vedics claim
the river Saraswati being cradle of Vedic civilisation, having so much so reverence for her,
change in her name to Ghaggar after supposed dominance of Vedic civilisation in the north is
simply unbelievable. E

Of Ganga and Yamuna, either can be said that only these two rivers were known as easternmost
rivers to the Rig Vedic tribes or these rivers could be any of western tributaries of Indus or
Helmand river. Even if both the suggestions are dismissed, alternative answer would be that
some Indian rivers were incorporated in the hymn when Vedic religion was being introduced to
Indian populace by its faithful preachers those found refuge in the north Indian lands.

However, let us not forget that the purpose of the Hymn is primarily to praise the rivers, not to
record geography. Besides, some of the identifiable rivers mentioned in it are not direct
tributaries of the Indus River. Many of them such as Ravi, Jhelum and Chenab and also Beas to
Satlej confluence long before they feed into the Indus river. In indicates that the known rivers
have been placed suitably in a poetic meter and not in geographical order in the Hymn, though
some of the rivers may appear to be so, identity of many rivers still remains ambiguous.

Moreover, the Rig Vedic descriptions of the river Saraswati as fierce (RV 6:62:7), swifter than
others, roaring, and bursting the edges of the hills with its strong waves (all in RV 6:61), flowing
from a threefold source in the mountains to the ‘samudra’ (RV 7:95) past many kingdoms (RV
8:21:18) nowhere matches the Ghaggar river. Ghaggar does not descent from the high
Himalayan Mountains nor was it ever a mighty river.

We have seen the geological evidences, which clearly show that the Ghaggar river was a
monsoon fed river even during mature Harappan phase. It was not a noteworthy river such as the
glacier fed rivers like Satlej and Yamuna. The Yamuna had become tributary of the Ganges
50,000 years ago due to shift in the river channel. The Satlej, too, had followed the suite about
10,000 years ago to become a tributary of the Indus, thus making the Ghaggar a monsoon fed
river. Recent geological reports based on the scientific surveys, using modern technologies and
analytical systems, of the sediments of the Ghaggar river, directly indicate that the Yamuna and
Satlej were never ever the tributaries of the Ghaggar. Neglecting these empirical proofs and
using Nadistuti hymn as a basis of determining provenance of a river cannot be considered a
scientific approach.

Nadistuti hymn thus becomes unreliable, not only to support any migration or Ghaggar ever
being Rig Vedic Saraswati.

Besides, there are other problems in equating the Ghaggar with Saraswati, which cannot be
overlooked. It is widely assumed by the Indian Nationalistic scholars that the Ghaggar is
Saraswati, on whose bank most of the Rig Vedic corpus was composed. If the claim considered
to be true, following major anomalies do arise.

1. It is a well-established fact that there are close similarities between Zoroastrian and Vedic
religion and rituals. The languages of the Vedas and the Avesta have striking similarities.
Many proper names and deity names are common, borrowed or exchanged but
 conveniently changing their characters. Ahura/Asura, Mithra/Mitra, Indara/Indra,
Magvan/Maghavan, Anahita/Anahita are a few examples of their numerous exchanges or
borrowings from the traditional religions of the past. We find these Gods/Demons in both
the religion with new characters with prominent or minor statuses. Ahura (Sk Asura) is
Lord in the Avesta whereas it turns to be demon in Rig Vedic compositions of later times.
In the beginning of the Rig Veda, the term ‘Asura’ denotes same meaning as ‘Ahura’,
which means ‘Lord’. We find in the Rig Veda ‘Asura’ word appearing at more than 90
occasions as a synonym to God, and mostly as an epithet of Vedic supreme God Varuna
along with Mitra, Adityas etc. In later times, ‘Asura’ became a synonym of demon in the
Vedic literature whereas Zoroastrians retained the original meaning throughout.
2. This means at some point of the time, Zoroastrian and Vedic people shared almost similar
faith. The drastic shift in the meaning, from Lord to Demon, can be attributed to the
religious conflict between the two religions, as evidenced from some wars mentioned in
the Rig Veda. Most importantly, this could not have happened unless both the religious
groups were geographically close to each other. (see Chapter 4)
3. It is clear from the Avesta (Zamyad Yast) that its geography was the northeast
Afghanistan, approximately in the Bactria region.20 The oldest name mentioned of this
river in the Avesta is Haraxvaiti, a cognate to Sanskrit Saraswati. (Sanskrit S changes to
H in Avestan language.) The meaning of Saraswati or Haraxvaiti in both the languages is
‘Full of ponds’. Vedic Saraswati empties its stores in ‘Sarswan’ sea. (RV 7.96) Saraswan
means a larger lake. Helmand river, too, feeds into the Lake Hamaun. As letter S turns to
Avestan H, Lake Hamaun would become Lake Samaun, close to the Sanskrit Saraswan or
Samudra.
4. If we look at the map, the distance between the Helmand and the Ghaggar region is not
less than 800 miles. However, this fact does not help us explain the similarities between
the Vedic and Zoroastrian faiths and their languages. We cannot assume that either the
Zoroastrians or Vedic people migrated from one place to other to cause religious and
linguistic impact on the other people. With linguistic similarities and dissimilarities
between both the languages and religious concepts of both the religions, it is not possible
to assume any migration theory.
5. In the Rig Veda, Zarathushtra finds his mention as ‘Jarutha’. The Zoroastrian scriptures
and Greek records attest his death as described in the Rig Veda as well (RV 7.1.7).
Though some scholars hesitate to connect Jarutha with Zarathustra, they at the least agree
that this is clearly Iranian name. Not only this, we find mention of Avestan king
‘Vistaspa’ as ‘Istasva’, Arjaspa as Rjrasva in Rig Veda. Apart from this, many Avestan
historical characters appear in Rig Veda. To know Avestan Kings and Zarathushtra
(Jarutha) himself, it was essential that the Vedic people were inhabited in the close
proximity of Avestan geography. (See chapter 5)
6. It is almost agreed by the scholars that bulk of the Rig Veda has been composed in the
close vicinity or on the banks of the Saraswati river. It is not any kind of mythical cosmic
river as some people might want to think. It is not coincidence that the river named
Haraxvaiti flows through southern Afghanistan and is mentioned in both the religious
scriptures with utmost reverence. Most of the rivers repeatedly mentioned in the Rig
Veda such as Gomati, Kurram, Kubha, Suvastu, Sushoma etc are Afghan rivers located in
the vicinity of the Haraxvaiti. River Rasa is identified with the Tigris river of east
Mesopotamia.
 7. If we agree that the Ghaggar-Hakra is the Rig Vedic Saraswati, then the question arises
how to eliminate the problem of geographical location. About 800 to 1,000 miles distance
could not have allowed any such intimate exchange of religious or linguistic concepts in
ancient times. Another point to be considered is that no Vedic element is present in any
of the site those are excavated in the Ghaggar basin or elsewhere. Besides, presuming the
Ghaggar is the lost Saraswati still does not make it clear as to which tribes were inhabited
between that vast tract and what was their culture and language. Moreover, most of the
tribes, such as Parthians, Persians, Baluchis, Pakhtuns etc. mentioned in the Rig Veda are
located in the regions of North-Western part of the Indian subcontinent and Iran-
Afghanistan. The Rig Vedic people cannot be located elsewhere rather than somewhere
between them in the same region.
8. Had the Ghaggar been Saraswati, it would have fallen in the domain of the Kuru kingdom
where the Great War of Mahabharata took place. Interestingly, the Mahabharata does not
at all mention Sudasa or battle of ten kings in which Purus were defeated. The supposed
Bharata clan of Sudasa and Bharata (Son of Dushyanta) of Kuru lineage were two distinct
families/persons. The Rig Veda nowhere mentions famous Kurukshetra through which
the Saraswati is supposed to have flowed. Had the Ghaggar been the lost Saraswati and
the Bharata clan of Sudasa ruled on the banks of most revered river Saraswati and in
whose rein, the most sacred scriptures had been composed, one would expect his mention
in Mahabharata. But it is not the case.

Rather, the names of five Rig Vedic tribes appear in the Mahabharata for personal names of the
offsprings of Yayati, not as the names of the tribes.

Interestingly ‘Pouru’, equivalent of Vedic ‘Puru’, appears as prefix of the many proper names in
Avesta. (E.g. Zarathustra’s fathers name was Pourushaspa.)

The only explanation to this can be that the Sudasa never ruled in the vicinity of the Kuru-
Panchal. The Mahabharata story of a Panchalya who routed the Samvarana who may have been
the Sudasa, as inferred by Raj Pruthi 21cannot be relied upon because the Sudasa had not only
defeated the Purukutsa of Puru clan alone but other tribal kings as well in the same battle to
which the Mahabharata does not mention while recording Samvarana’s event.F In addition, the
geography of the Panchala kingdom is not at all in the vicinity of the Ghaggar river, rather, it
again is far east from the banks of the Ghaggar.

The Mahabharata genealogies are restricted to the regions where the distinct Puru/Kuru clan
(descendents of Nahusha) ruled and not the Sudasa. Hence, there was no need to mention the
Sudasa or his predecessors or successors in the Puru/Kuru lineage in Mahabharata. Most
probably, the later writers of the Mahabharata had borrowed the names of Yayati’s sons such as
Puru, Anu, Druhyu (From Sharmistha) Yadu and Turvasu (From Devyani) from the Rig Vedic
tribal names to bridge the missing or forgotten link in the genealogy. In reality, there cannot be
any possible relationship of these tribe-names with the personal names of Yayati’s sons, unless
they were borrowed directly from the Rig Veda. If we try to assume that, the Yayati’s sons,
establishing different kingdoms, formed the Rig Vedic tribes, we do not get any such support
from the Mahabharata. Yayati had cursed his other sons except Puru when they declined to
transfer their youth to him. (1.84, Mahabharata)
Moreover, we need here to see what Rig Veda says about Yadu-Turvasas. The Rig Veda
describes that the Yadu and Turvasus are coming from long distances. (RV 1.36.18, 7.45.1) If
the Vedics were settled across the river Ghaggar, the known regions of at the least Yadus could
not have been ‘far away’!

Considering this, the Bharata/Puru lineage of Mahabharata would seem to be rather fictitious,
fabricated unless the Kurus borrowed the Rig Vedic names right from personal names such as
Nahusha, Yayati (composers of some Rig Vedic verses) to tribal names like Puru, Anu, and
Druhyu etc. or the names were, too, common to have been used by all other societies including
the Vedics and others in different original forms.

The statement may sound quite bold. However, one would not find it so if we seriously consider
that there is nothing to show any connection between the Vedic Puru or Purukutsa and Puru, the
Son of Yayati of the Mahabharata. The Turvasas and Druhyus seem to have been vanished from
the traditional historical account. Most interestingly, the Tritsus (Sudasa’s tribe or his alleys) also
find no mention anywhere in the post-Vedic literature. It must be so because like most of the
other tribes including the Tritsus or the Sudasa were not located in the Kuru-Panchal region i.e.
the Ghaggar region and were not at all related to the Bharatas of the Mahabharata. This is why
we find some namesakes in the Mahabharata but not at all related with the Rig Vedic history.

To support this, we also have indirect evidence that the Rig Veda nowhere mentions other
famous contemporary tribes of those times such as the Ikshvaku, the Satvatas, the Bhojas, and
the Videhas etc, which flourished in the central-east regions.G In the Rig Veda, we find mention
of about 48 or more tribes, which were either friends or foes with the Vedic people. Location of
these tribes was mostly in the Northwestern parts of India and Iran-Afghanistan. Had the Rig
Vedic geography been somewhere near the Ghaggar, which is touted as Saraswati, those tribes
would find some mention here and there, being in close vicinity and all possibilities of
interaction between them. Rather, we find frequent mentions of the tribes those were located in
north-western parts of India and Iran-Afghanistan. Since, it seems that, there is no mention of the
tribes of Indian origin; we have to abandon the idea that the Vedic people ever were residents of
the Ghaggar region.

This makes clear that the Ghaggar could not have been Saraswati even on basis of the
Mahabharata and Purana’s accounts.

From above discussion on scientific explorations in the Ghaggar basin and other points as
discussed above, it would be a blunder to connect the Ghaggar with Saraswati. In addition, we
have raised serious doubts on the migration theories for spread of PIE languages. Rather, we find
linguistic and religious closeness between just two societies, Avestan and Rig Vedic, which can
be attributed to their geographical closeness. There is no any other contemporary civilisation to
show close affinity as both the religious texts show. Anyway, both the scriptures do not indicate
their original homeland being elsewhere. Deriving wishful meaning from the excavated remains
and enforcing some kind of theory upon those societies is not desired from the modern academia.

This makes it very difficult or almost impossible to relate the Ghaggar with the Vedic Saraswati,
as geographical proofs rather go contrary to the Vedic myths as well. We cannot be in the
agreement with the scholars those want to establish progenitors of the Indus culture were Vedics.
Dr. Francesco Brighenti, an eminent Indologist, has rightly stated that "It seems that a new
scientific consensus is emerging which neutralizes the pseudo-scientific argument about the
‘Mighty Saraswati’, used by Hindutva folks & their sympathizers to identify the Vedic Age with
the period of the Indus Valley civilization.” 22
*

References:

1. An archaeological tour along the Ghaggar-Hakra River, by Sir Aurel Stein,

Amalananda Ghosh, Swarajya Prakash Gupta, Pub.- Kusumanjali Prakashan,1989.
2. RIGVEDIC SARASVATI: MYTH AND REALITY, by Mr. Ashoke Mukherjee,
(Breakthrough Vol. 9, No. 1, 2001)
3. Geomorphological Constraints on the Ghaggar River Regime During the Mature
Harappan Period” by Hideaki Maemoku, Yorinao Shitaoka, Tsuneto Nagatomo,
and Hiroshi Yagi, “Climates, Landscapes, and Civilizations” (Volume 198), edited
by Giosan, Liviu / Fuller, Dorian Q. / Nicoll, Kathleen / Flad, Rowan K. / Clift,
Peter D., Pub.: Wiley, 2013, page 97 – 106
4. Ibid
5. Fluvial landscapes of the Harappan civilization, by Liviu Giosan, Peter D. Clift,
Mark G. Macklin, Dorian Q. Fuller, Stefan Constantinescu, Julie A. Durcan,
Thomas Stevens, Geoff A. T. Duller, Ali R. Tabrez, Kavita Gangal, Ronojoy
Adhikari, Anwar Alizai, Florin Filip, Sam VanLaningham, James P. M. Syvitski,
first presented in Proceedings of National Academy of Science in March 2012.
(Available at:
http://www.academia.edu/149269/Fluvial_Landscapes_of_the_Harappan_Civilizatio
n.)
6. Ibid
7. “Explorations in the Ghaggar Basin”, contributed by Vasant Shinde et al. in
“Linguistics, Archaeology and the Human Past”, edited by Toshiki OSADA and
Akinori UESUGI, 2008, p. 79
8. Ibid
9. ‘The Ancient Indus Valley: New Perspectives’, By Jane McIntosh, 2008, p. 94.
10. Ibid, page 397
11. . “The Quest for the Origins of Vedic Culture: The Indo-Aryan Migration Debate”,
by Edwin Bryant, Oxford University Press, 2001, p. 167-68
12. “Is River Ghaggar, Saraswati?”, by Jayant K. Tripathi, Barbara Bock, V. Rajamani
and A. Eisenhauer, CURRENT SCIENC, (VOL. 87, NO. 8, 25 OCTOBER 2004).
13. “U-Pb zircon dating evidence for a Pleistocene Sarasvati River and capture of the
Yamuna River” Peter D. Clift et al., published in “Geology”, (Geological Society of
America), 40 (3), 211-214. (Online published in September 2011 at:
http://geology.gsapubs.org/content/early/2012/01/23/G32840.1.abstract)
 14. Report presented to a conference on “Climates, Past landscapes, and Civilizations”
organized in March 2011 at Santa Fe, Published in “Science” magazine (Vol. 332)
dated 1 April 2011. (Available online at:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/52182999/Science-01-April-2011#scribd)
15. ‘Environmental Change and the Indus Civilization’, by Osada Toshiki, Project
leader, published online in Ecohistory, page 39,
http://www.chikyu.ac.jp/rihn_13/archive/brochure/2010/yoran-e_2010_37-44.pdf
16. Suvrat Kher’s blog. (Available at : http://suvratk.blogspot.in/2012/02/yamuna-and-
sutlej-stopped-flowing-into.html)
17. “Is River Ghaggar, Saraswati?” contributed by Jayant K. Tripathi, Barbara Bock,
V. Rajamani and A. Eisenhauer, CURRENT SCIENCE (VOL. 87, NO. 8, 25),
October 2004,
18. “Is Rigveda pre-Harappan?”Nicholas Kazanas
19. “Identity and Chronology of the Rigvedic River Sarasvati”, by Rajesh Kochhar,
published in Archaeology and Language III: Artefacts, Languages and Texts
(Volume 1), edited by Roger Blench, Matthew Spriggs, Pub.: Routledge, 1999. Page
263.

20. ‘Further Notes on Avestan geography’, by Gherardo Gnoly in “Languages of Iran:

Past and Present”, edited by Dieter Weber, Pub. Harrassowitz . Wiesdaden, 2005.

21. ‘Vedic Civilization’, edited by Raj Pruthi, Pub. Discovery Publishing House, 2004
Page 85-86.

22. Dr. Francesco Brighenti has remarked on the Yahoo Group “Indo-Eurasian
Research”. (Available at: https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/Indo-
Eurasian_research/conversations/messages/15017)

Additional Notes:
A. Mr. Mukherjee, in his paper RIGVEDIC SARASVATI: MYTH AND REALITY, lists
the big claims made by the euphoric saffron scholars as under:
“In fact also they claim: 1) Vedic culture is much older than Harappan civilization; 2)
A settled agricultural population — the so-called Aryans — developed the Rigvedic
culture on the banks of the river Sarasvati; 3) The river Sarasvati was an important
and a very large river in the sub-Himalayan peninsula before the advent of the
Harappan civilization, which gradually dried up; 4) The Harappan civilization was a
continuation of the Vedic culture which in course of time developed from a village
culture into an urban culture; 5) It is, therefore, wrong to ethnically differentiate
between the two cultures; they belong to the same ethnic group of people — namely,
the ‘Aryans’; 6) The ancient Indian civilization should not be termed Indus Valley
 Civilization, it should better be referred to as the Sarasvati Civilization, or, at most as
the Sarasvati Sindhu Civilization; etc. etc.’’
However, he refutes these claims in view of the empirical proofs those go entirely
against above mentioned claims. (Available at: http://www.breakthrough-
india.org/archives/saraswati.pdf)
B. In recent decades, many books claiming the Ghaggar to be the mythical Saraswati
river have been published. Some of them are – 1) ‘Saraswati: The River that
Disappeared’ by K. S. Waldia, Universities Press, 2002, 2) ‘Sarasvati: River’ by
Shrinivasan Kalyanraman, Babasaheb Smarak Apte Samiti, 2003, 3) ‘Sarasvati River
and the Vedic Civilization: History, Science, and Politics’, by Navaratna Srinivasa
Rajaram, Aditya Prakashan, 2006. Besides, a number of articles have been published
in vernacular and English media.

C. Like Kazanas, other Vedicist scholars have also attempted to stretch back Rig Vedic era
to pre-Harappan times. However, further back one stretches the timeline of the Rig
Veda, serious problemsw do occur to which Vedicists give dumb ear. If Rig Vedic date is
to be placed prior to 3000 BC, following anomalies must be answered honestly:

1. It is clear that the Indus culture was bull-centric whereas Vedic culture was
horse-centric. How and when did this such sudden shift occurred and why?

2. No geological proof suggests that after 12000 BCE Ghaggar was ever a
perennial mighty river. Under such circumstances, can the Vedas be as old as
12000 BCE or of even earlier date? Ghaggars river bed has been shallow even
before the Holocene. If so, how the Saraswati river’s Rig Vedic descriptions
could ever be matched with the Ghaggar of either the past or present?

Vedas could be as older as possible to the heartfelt satisfaction of the Vedicist

scholars, but then they have to find there “naditame” river somewhere else, as
Ghaggar couldn’t have been Saraswati of Rig Veda even in the remotest era.

D. The identifications of these rivers has been attempted by many scholars. The brief
account is presented bellow;

Parusni: There is no unanimity about the identification of the river Parusni. This river in Rig
Veda is also called Mahanadi. (RV 8.74.15). Pischel suggests the word “Parus” is derived
from the flocks of wool, not from bends of river, as understood by Nirukta or from the reeds as
Roth suggests. Hopkins had suggested that the Yamuna could be another name of the Parusni
whereas Geldner suggests that the Parusni is mere a tributary to Yamuna. Actually, as Pischel
suggests that wool (urna) is connected with Parusni river, hence “Parus”, flocks “Urna”
Wool would mean flocks of the wool. (“Vedic Index of Names and Subjects, Volume 1”, By
Arthur Anthony Macdonell & Arthur Berriedale Keith, Indian edition, pub. Motilal
Banarasidas Publishers Pvt. Ltd.,1995, p. 499-500.) Pischel suggests, Parusni was named
from richness of its sheep and as Gandhara ewes were famous, this would indicate that in all
probabilities this was a river from Gandhara region. (Ibid, p.41.)

If this is the case, the river could be associated the people where sheep rearing for wool was a
major business of the people residing across its banks. The place, again could have been in
Helmand Basin or Swat valley. Equating this river with Ravi may not be correct.

2. Vitasta: Macdonnel asserts that the Vitasta does not appear except Nadistuti hymn in Rig
Veda. It is the Hydaspes to Alexander’s historians and is reproduced by Ptolemy as Bidaspes.
Muslim historians have corrupted its form as Bihat or Wihat which survives in Kashmiri form
of Veth. (“Vedic Index of Names and Subjects’, Volume 2, By Arthur Anthony Macdonell &
Arthur Berriedale Keith, Indian edition, pub. Motilal Banarasidas Publishers Pvt. Ltd.,1995,
p. 295) This also may suggest that the forced identification of the Vitasta with Jhelum may not
be correct.

3. Asikni was known to Greeks as Akesines, Asikni means ‘black’, suggests Macdonnel, but he
does not explain how the name Asikni could have been corrupted or changed to Chenab?.
(‘Vedic Index of Names and Subjects’, Volume 1, By Arthur Anthony Macdonell &Arthur
Berriedale Keith, pub. Motilal Banarasidas Publishers Pvt. Ltd., 1995, p. 47.) Chenab literally
means Moon River, said to be a corrupt form of the Chandrabhaga.

In short, we have no strong proof to identify above rivers with any of the river of the Indus
system.

E. There is one “Sarsuti’, an insignificant rivulet among many those feed into Ghaggar. Its
being Vedic Saraswati is beyond any probability. None of the river or streams in the Ghaggar
system carries Vedic name except this, making identification even impossible. The name to a
rivulet must have been given at very later course of the time by the local people. Briyant
remarks that,” “Over sixty hymns referring to Sarasvati in the Rgveda, many of which are
specifically dedicated to it, attest to its importance in the world of the Vedic poets. An
invocation in R.V. 10.75.5, which lists the rivers in geographically correct order from east to
west, situates Sarasvati between the Yamuna and the Sutudri (Sutlej). However, although the
other rivers in the list are all still presently extant in the north of the Indian subcontinent,
nothing is to be found of the mighty Sarasvati today except for an insignificant stream in the
foothills of the Himalayas that preserves its name.” (‘The Quest for the Origins of Vedic
Culture: The Indo-Aryan Migration Debate’, by Edwin Bryant, Oxford University Press,
2001, Page 164). Since identity of some other rivers too is doubtful, Sarasuti cannot be the
remnant of the Rig Vedic Saraswati’s corrupt form.

F. Mahabharata (1.94) gives account of the Samvarana and Panchal king as under. (Trans.
Mine)
“When Samvarana, son of Ruksha, (of Puru dynasty) was ruling, the kingdom faced many
natural calamities, such as epidemics and sever draughts, taking toll of the citizens life. As,
under such calamitous condition, the kingdom was suffering, the king of Panchala kingdom
gathered forces and attacked Bharatas. In this war Bharatas met with the ultimate defeat
which forced Samvarana to flee with his wives, children and ministers to Indus region where
he sought shelter on the banks of Indus down a mountain. He built a fort there and made it
his abode for next thousand years.” (Sampurna Mahabharat, Vol. 1, Originally translated by
Appashastri Rashivadekar, Prof. C. G. Ganu, R. B. Datar and K. N. Athalye, Edited by Prof.
Bhalba Kelkar, Varada Books, third edition, 1986, page 209)

The war account of Samvarana with Panchala king of Mahabharata is sufficient enough to
discard the notion that this war account anyway resembles with the battle of ten kings of Rig
Veda.

G. Some scholars want to identify “Ikshvaku” word appearing in the Rig Veda with Ikshvaku clan that
ruled from Ayodhya. However, Ikshvaku is considered to be first king of Ayodhya. (Harivansh 1.10,
Matsya Prana 12.15) Dr. S. V. Ketkar informs that this family was famous among “Suta” (Purana
singers) tradition. Many scholars are of the opinion that the “Ikshvaku” word appearing in the Rig
Veda is alternative name of the Sun. In Atharva Veda Ikshvaku name appears as a physician who
could treat leprosy. (See Bharatiya Sanskruti Kosha, Vol. 1, edited by Pt. Mahadev Shastri Joshi, Pub.:
Bharatiya Sanskrutikosh Mandala, third edition, 1997)

This will clear that the Ikshvaku, a ruling clan of India had no relation whatsoever with the Rig Vedic
Ikshvaku.
 Chapter 3

Vedic and Indus civilisation : A comparison

While the Indian Vedic revisionist scholars are eagerly attempting to establish that the authors of
the Indus-Ghaggar Valley Civilisation (IGVC) were none but the Vedic Indigenous Aryans, it is
essential to verify this claim on religious as well as cultural grounds. We get a fair idea about
their religious concepts, rituals, social order and overall culture of Vedic people from the Rig
Veda. Though we are yet to decipher the Indus script, numerous excavated articles, figurines and
images at various sites throw light on the basic idea of the IGVC’s faiths and culture. Comparing
the two will enable us understand whether the Vedic Aryans had any connection as progenitors
or part of Indus-Ghaggar Valley Civilisation (IGVC) or they were a distinct socio-cultural group.

Archaeologists and Indologists have examined the excavated material at Indus sites to
understand the religious concepts of the Indus people. In addition, there have been many
deliberations on whether the Indus religious concepts show any indications of its continuity. Let
us begin with Indus images, figurines and cult objects reported to be found at the IGVC.

Proto-Shiva

This seal depicting a person with horned headdress sitting in yogic posture was among many
others found in the remains of the Indus-Ghaggar Civilisation. Sir John Marshall was the first
one to propose in 1931 that this is the image of proto-Shiva and most of the scholars believe in
his identification. He had stated, “My reasons for the identification are four. In the first place, the
figure has three faces and that Siva was portrayed with three as well as with more usual five
faces, there are abundant examples to prove. Secondly, the head is crowned with the horns of a
bull and the trisula are characteristic emblems of Siva. Thirdly, the figure is in a typical yoga
attitude, and Siva was and still is, regarded as a Mahayogi—the prince of Yogis. Fourthly, he is
surrounded by animals, and Siva is par excellence the ‘Lord of Animals’ (Pasupati)—of the wild
animals of the jungle, according to the Vedic meaning of the word pasu, no less than that of
domesticated cattle.” 1

However, many others have raised questions about the identification made by Marshall. For
example, Hiltrebeital identified this horned figure as Mahishasur (Buffalo demon); S R Rao
identified it as Fire God (Agni) and Sullivan as the Goddess. There is a dispute as to whether this
figure has three faces like the Trimurti, as observed by Marshall. Sullivan opines the image does
not have erect phallus but it shows a part of girdle as found in other female figurines. 2

The Pashupati seals, too, depict headdress same as is in the present image. The headdress of the
female figurines or of those, which are identified as goddesses are entirely different from the
headdress of Shiva or Pashupati images, many of the headdresses are shown pannier-shaped.

Some also have tried to identify the headdress with Trishul as well. “The seated deity is generally
showed wearing buffalo’s or Bull’s horns, often forming a three pronged headdress with a pipal
branch as the central part: This may be the origin of trisula (trident), later an attribute of Shiva,”
opines Jane McIntosh. 3

However, there is no doubt among the scholars that the person in the image is seating in the
Yogic posture. Without going in to much detail of the various opinions of the scholars, let us
examine the image independently and the myths associated with Shiva to evaluate whether the
image belongs to the proto-Shiva.

One must remember here that the Indian mythologists agree in unison that benevolent Lord
Shiva was the one who first introduced the Yoga to the humankind. He has been called
Yogishvar or Mahayogi because not only he created Yoga; but he himself is an eternal Yogi!

On his head, we can see a hornlike headdress. The horn is winged in the shape of the crescent
moon at both the sides. Presently, a single crescent moon hanging beside Shiva’s head is
depicted in the images of Shiva. It seems that over the time, with changes in iconography, the
horn might have developed to the crescent moon placed differently in artistic manner, while
adding other attributes such as serpent in neck.

It is obvious that the image does not reflect Agni (fire God) in any way. In fact, the Vedic
literature nowhere speaks of Agni as a master of Yoga. Moreover, the term ‘Yoga’ is entirely
missing from the Rig Veda.4

The figure also cannot be of a Goddess because ample of female figurines found in IVC can be
classified distinctly in looks and attire. We find variety of designs of the headdress, especially, in
mother goddess and other figurines, but those are certainly not horned headdresses. Moreover, as
the image does not resemble to that of a female deity and there seems no girdle at all around the
waist of the image, it cannot be of a feminine deity. In addition to that, no female deity in India
tradition is ascribed to Yoga whereas Shiva’s main symbol is his being ‘utthit linga’ (ithyphallic)
and epithet Mahayogi. Therefore the debate, whether the image is ithyphallic or whether it shows
girdle of the feminine deity instead of phallus is unnecessary. The image is ithyphallic.

Another proof that clearly indicates the above image could be only of proto-Shiva is evident
from the terracotta Shivlingam found at Kalibangan site, carbon dated back to 2,600 BC. Same
kind of Shivlingams are worshipped even today at thousands of Shiva shrines spread throughout
the country.

(Shivalinga, Kalibangan, 2600 BC)

Besides, there are finds of many of separate carved stones representing the phallic and female
sexual organs, confirming that the worship of mother goddess (Shakti) and proto-Shiva was
being conducted separately. These separate stones representing the phallic and female sexual
organs were unified later on in the Shivalingam form.

(Phallic stone, Dholavira)

Besides, we must not overlook that according to linguists, the word Shiva finds its origin in the
Dravidian term ‘Shivan’, which means red colored. The word ‘Shiva’ does not find its origin in
the Sanskrit or Vedic language in absence of etymology. 5

(Pashupati Seal)

The seal, famous as Pashupati seal, depicts a male figure sitting in Yogic posture surrounded by
the animal, praising the Lord. Shiva’s one epithet is Pashupati, Lord of the animal. A sect in
Shaiva religion, which worships Shiva in the ‘Lord of Animal’ form, is called ‘Pashupata’. He is
said to be the protector of Pashu (that includes the humankind as well.) It is noteworthy here
that famous Shiva temple in Nepal is also called ‘Pashupati Nath’. Though some Vedic scholars
have tried to connect Shiva with Vedic Rudra and have attempted to ascribe this image to the
Vedic Rudra to assert their claim. However, the fact remains that the Vedic Rudra is
characteristically entirely different deity than Shiva. Rudra is not worshipped in phallic form
anywhere. Rather, the Vedic Rudra is mostly associated with the fire sacrifice, Shiva is not. The
difference in the two deities does not end here. Let us understand how the Vedic literature
depicts what the character of Rudra. The Vedic literature depicts Rudra as:

A) Having golden complexion, Vedic Rudra is as handsome as the supreme Vedic God
Indra. He wears a golden necklace and holds a golden axe. He helps the Vedic people in
finding their lost cattle. However, there is no mention of his headdress in the Rig Veda.

B) In some Rig Vedic descriptions, Rudra is said to be an older than oldest. (Tavstamah
tavasam).

C) Rudra’s father is Prajapati. (Maitrayani Sanhita, 6:1-9). In a mythical story, Rudra is said
to have killed Prajapati. (Aitareya Brahmina- 3.13.9)

D) Main epithet of Rudra is ‘Agni’ (Fire).

 E) In Agnichayana (a kind of fire sacrifice) to keep the fire kindled, butter is constantly
poured in the fire pit, while chanting ‘Shatarudriya’ (Hymns addressed to Rudra)
requesting him to immerse in the fire.

F) Rudra is not a single entity but is enumerated from 11 to 60 in different texts of Vedic
literature. Hence, Rudra represents a group of deities bearing the same name. Often, he is
also called the father of Maruts, another group of Vedic Gods.

G) Rudrasavarni, 12th Manu, is said to be son of Rudra.

H) Rudra is nowhere associated with Yoga.

I) There are only three verses dedicated to Rudra in Rig Veda. In a way, Rudra was a minor
god of the Vedic people.

J) Rudra is depicted as destroyer of fiends in Rig Veda. (RV 2.33.10) Dogs and wolves are
the pets of Rudra. (Atharva Veda 11.2.2) In Pashupati seal, we do not find both the
animals making it impossible to identify this image with Rudra. Rather, Shiva is depicted
in the mythologies as. Bhutnatha, (Lord of fiends), not enemy of them. 6 & 7

Considering this, there is opinion of scholars like Kuiper that the Rudra has possibly a non-
Aryan origin. 8 Some scholars believe that the Rudra cult was assimilated in the Vedic stream
from non-Vedic stratum later on during the period of Rig Vedic compositions. A

Considering the above description and myths surrounding the Vedic Rudra, one can ascertain
that they nowhere match with the myths and iconography related to Shiva. Shiva is ajanma,
(eternal) having no birth or father. Indeed, Shiva is a concept of creation, preservation and
destruction of the universe that is worshiped in phallic form, as a symbol of creation. Hence,
Marshall’s identification of the image that it is of proto-Shiva having three faces and in
ithyphallic nature, as described by Indian mythologies in regards with Shiva, is most reliable
than of the others.

Many phallic type stone objects and ring stones representing female organs found at the Indus
sites, which suggest Linga and Yoni worship of IGVC people, also support this fact. We find the
continuity of the Lingam worship culture in Shaivait religion even today. Moreover, the term
Linga does not belong to the Vedic Sanskrit. Mahadev Chakravarti observes, “Linguistic
evidence indicates that the post-Vedic Hindus not only adopted the tradition/ cult of the linga
from the pre-Vedic non-Aryans, but even the term itself is of Austric origin”. 9

Let us also not forget that the phallic worship was spread in the larger part of the world in
ancient times because it was the most appropriate symbol of the fertility. It is needless to
mention here that the Rig Vedic Rudra is not at all associated with the fertility. It shows clearly
that the phallic cult or proto-Shaivait cult, which still prevails in the country, was dominant in
IGVC era too. The identity of the Pashupati or proto-Shiva image with Rudra, Mahishasura or
any Goddess is farfetched and thus not admissible. The find of terracotta Shivlingam image of
Kalibangan wipes out the arguments of the scholars those want to associate Shiva with Vedic
Rudra.

Here we come across a Bull seal. Bull seals are so common in Indus civilisation that they show
that the Indus civilisation was mostly bull centric. It is a proven fact that the Indus-Ghaggar
civilisation was primarily an agrarian society. Even today, Bull has a special significance in the
agrarian life, as he is most trusted and useful assistant of the farmers in agro-related tasks. The
importance of the Bull to the Indus society could also be in the faith that he represents the male
prowess.

Bulls are beautifully depicted on the Indus seals. It was but natural for Indus-Ghaggar agrarian
people to give him a special position in their religious and social life. Even today, Bull is revered
in the villages by the farmers with a special festival dedicated to him.

The importance of Bull in Indian culture does not end here. In front of every Shiva Temple, we
can notice the idol of a seated bull and devotees pay tribute to it before entering the temple.
Traditionally, the bull is depicted as vehicle of Shiva. It is evident from this that the tradition of
Bull worship has its roots in the Indus-Ghaggar culture.

Mother Goddess
Mother Goddess worship is as ancient as human history and was practiced in almost every corner
of the world in ancient times. Ring stones suggesting feminine organs and female figurines with
sexual marks are found abundantly in the IGVC sites. That suggests that the mother goddess cult
also was prevalent and even dominating in the IGVC. Again, it is pertinent to note here that the
headdress of the female figurines or images is not horned like of proto-Shiva or Pashupati
images, but has distinct settings. From the Kalibangan terracotta Shivalingam, we can safely
deduce that in the later course, both cults were unified in a single idol giving equal status to male
and female organs.

Proto-Ganesha

(Proto-Ganesha, Image courtesy Harappa.com)

This is the typical Indus elephant-head headress, most probably used as a mask by the people in
cult dances, which indicate the precursor of Ganesha cult existed in the IVC. The elephant head
(now in Harappa museum) shows the traces of vermillion paint which are still visible. Moreover,
the Ganesha idols are still painted with vermillion as a tradition.
The find of the Monkey-God image also throws light on the prevalence of Hanumant (Maruti)
worship in the IGVC. Hanuman is still worshipped throughout the country. F E Pargiter suggests
that the word ‘Hanuman’ has been the Sanskritised form of the Tamil word ‘Anmanti’ (The Male
Monkey). 10

From these facts, we can deduce that the religious traditions of the IGVC have flown to us with
minor modifications in iconography and additions of numerous mythologies. Some have
emerged after spread of the Vedic cult in India, which always differentiated Shiva-Uma worship
other than of Vedic. We do not know for sure what Indus people called proto-Shiva, proto-Shakti,
Hanuman and Ganesha but the present forms of the Shaivism, Shaktism and Ganesha worship
shows clear link with the IGVC religion including special reverence to Pipal tree.

Dr RN Dandekar clearly states that, “…unlike the Vedic religion, the Indus religion was
essentially iconolatrous, which feature, incidentally, is seen to have been shared with it by the
Hinduism of later periods……Like the phallus cult, the Mother Goddess cult also must have
been independent origin, but, in one of the phases of its development, namely, cult of ‘mothers’,
it must have been organically associated with the Indus Valley Religion.” 11

There is suggestive evidence available that the IGVC, too, must have called only Shiva to the
Lingam images, as we find one of the tribe names (from famous battle of ten kings) was Shiva.
“Together came the Pakthas, the Bhalanas, the Alinas, the Sivas, the Visanins...” (RV 7.18.7) It
means that the name Shiva existed in those times, too, indicating that the IGVC called their most
revered deity by the name of Shiva and that was adopted as identity of some tribes or regions as
well. Vishanins mean those wear horned headdress. This, too, suggests that the Vishanins
possibly had a connection with the Indus civilisation. Both the words do not find root in IE
languages. Even the word ‘Puja’ (worship) which is the main part of Hindu ritual does not find
any place in either Rig Veda or root in the Sanskrit. 12

Dr Dandekar, too, opines that, “Indeed, sufficient evidence is available to warrant the
supposition that the religion of proto-Siva had spread far and wide in pre-Vedic India-different
aspects of the personality and character of that god having been emphasised in different parts of
the country. In his proto-Dravidian aspect, for instance, the god of this religion was celebrated as
a ‘red’ god and was actually called Siva.” 13

Thus, it seems there has been no discontinuation of the Indus religion with the modern people.
Notwithstanding the disintegration of settlements in Indus-Ghaggar valley, the Shaivait tradition
still remains highly prominent in the country. However, in the light of the above mentioned clear
proof, one may wonder why even Indian scholars shy away from calling it Shaivait? Why they
want to connect it with the Vedic culture when there is not a single shred of evidence suggesting
that? The answer may be in their Vedic supremacist mindsets or else they would not have
continued to neglect the vital proofs.

Though the abundant finds of the female images and figurines led to many scholars believing
that the Indus society was matriarchal, the claim cannot be proved beyond doubt. However, it
would be safe to state that the women were assigned equal or more social prestige in the IGVC
times. Temples or places of public worship have not been found in IGVC towns. But looking at
the practice of keeping images of deities in household shrines that still is being followed, temples
or public worship places wouldn’t have been necessity of those times.

Having discussed how the Shaivait phallic (linga-Yoni) cult was dominant in the IGVC, now let
us consider the religious ideas of Vedic people as described in Vedas.

Vedic religion

While we have already discussed the religious elements found in the excavations at the Indus-
Ghaggar sites, it would be equally important to see what the Vedic religion was and whether we
find any traces of it in the IGVC. We will discuss the religious concepts of the Rig Veda that
later on evolved philosophically and ritualistically in the later period of Brahmanas. It is obvious
from the mention of the first word ‘Agni’ in the first hymn of the Rig Veda that the Vedic rituals
were fire (Agni) centric. Yajnya (fire sacrifice) and the various offerings through it to the abstract
Vedic gods is the only medium to link human beings with the divine. Vedic ritual also
prominently includes Soma (an intoxicating herb or ephedra) ritual.

Indra is a major deity and about a quarter part of the Rig Veda is dedicated to the praise of Indra.
He is demon slayer (like Vrutra), destroyer of the fortified cities of the enemy, a warrior himself
helping Sudasa clan to win the wars, his favorite weapon is thunderbolt (vajra), he is destroyers
of the dams and he is the king. (RV 8.48)

Following the Soma (deified ephedrine drink), other major God is the Varuna. Varuna, on many
occasions, has been coupled with Mitra as ‘Mitra-Varuna’. Varuna is the protector of truth and
morality, god of the high-arched sky and ocean. Varuna’s main epithet in the Rig Veda is Asura.
Mitra personifies the agreement or contract and he sustains earth and heaven. (RV 7.87, 3.59).
Nasatya, Prajapati, Vishnu etc. are others include almost 645 gods from the Rig Vedic pantheon.

Female deities are almost absent from the Rig Veda, except for deification of some natural
elements. The female deities include Aditi (mother of Adityas), Ratri (nights), Prithvi (Earth),
Saraswati (the river), Ushas (Dawn) and Vac (speech). Aditi gets more importance and is
associated with Adityas as their mother. However, according to Griffith, the name Aditi is used
in the Rig Veda in different contexts such as a female goddess, a name of the earth, another name
of Agni and even as a name of the male god. Mostly, Aditi is depicted as the mother of Adityas
and has a minor role to perform. It is often suggested by scholars that the Vedic people were
patriarchal treating women as a better half, subordinate to male.

All the offerings were made through the fire ritual, yajnya, to praise the gods. Thus, the sacred
fire altar attained such prominence that, even its construction and dismantling became a sacred
ritual in later times, such as in Agnichyayana. However, except for this construction of the sacred
fire altar, we do not find any reference to the idol worship. Rather idolatry appears to be
prohibited in the Vedic religion. “Na tasya Pratima asti” (There is no image of Him.)
[Yajurveda 32:3]. The word ‘Pratima’ has been interpreted by some as symbol, claiming that the
symbolism is abundantly present in Rig Veda, such as of ‘Purusha’ in Purushsukta. However,
symbolism does not mean ‘Pratima’ (image, embodiment) that always is artificial and a human
creation. The God has no image because to Vedics He is formless and is to be worshiped through
the oblations in sacred fire while chanting the praises of Him in systematic order was the way the
Vedic rituals were conducted. Looking at the Rig Vedic hymns those were specifically meant for
the fire-centric rituals and total absence of any reference to the idol worship, it is hard to infer
that the Vedic people were idol worshipers.

The Rig Veda also does not mention anywhere that the Vedic’s were phallic or feminine organ
worshipers. There is not a single verse in praise of these sex organs. This does not mean that they
did not know the people who were phallic worshipers. The Rig Veda seems completely hostile
against the people worshiping ‘shisnadeva’ (Phallic God.)

“na yātava indra jūjuvurno na vandanā śaviṣṭha vedyābhiḥ |

sa śardhadaryo viṣuṇasya jantormā śiśnadevā api ghurtaṃ naḥ ||”(RV 7.21.5)

Translation:

"None of (ná) the demonic spirits (yātáva) [who] do not (ná) worship (vándanā) [you] with
knowledge (vedyā́ bhiḥ), Oh most-mighty (śaviṣṭha) Indra (indra), have pressed forwards
(jūjuvurno) [against] us (no). May that (sá) excellent one (aryo) triumph over (ṇasya) the
defiant ones (śardhat) in both directions (víṣu); also (api), may the children (jantór) of the
phallic gods (śiśnádevā) not (mā́ ) go after (gur) our (naḥ) lawful work (ṛtáṃ)."

sa vājaṃ yātāpaduṣpadā yan svarṣātā pari ṣadatsaniṣyan |

anarvā yacchatadurasya vedo ghnañchiśnadevānabhi varpasā bhūt || (RV 10.99.3)

Horace Hayman Wilson translates it as follows:

“Going to the battle, marching with easy gait, desiring the spoil, he set himself to the acquisition
of all (wealth). Invincible, destroying the phallus- worshippers, he won by his prowess whatever
wealth (was concealed in the city) with the hundred gates.”

Both these verses clearly speak about the people those were engaged in phallic worship and
resided in the fortified cities, were bitter opponents and sometimes enemies of the Vedic people.
Some scholars have attempted to translate ‘shisnadeva’ as unchaste, lewd (Griffith), vulgar or
licentious deities. However, close examination of both the verses reveals that the verse 7.21.5
also speaks about ‘yatava’, those follow occult practices, as well. In addition, it refers to the
people who do not respect or practice Vedas and who are the children of the Shisnadeva. Verse
10.99.3 clearly speaks about destruction of the city of hundred gates belonging to shisnadevan
(Phallus worshippers). It also makes it clear that the Vedic people closely knew the phallic
worshiping civilisation and had had some skirmishes with them. Translating ‘shisnadeva’ as
unchaste, lewd, vulgar or licentious deities is meaningless and shows prejudice of the scholars.
However, it would be important to see how Nirukta of Yaska interprets the verse 7.21.5.

”May he, the noble one, defy the manifold creatures, let phallus worshippers not penetrate our
sanctuary. May he overpower them, i.e. the manifold creatures who are hostile to us. Let the
phallus worshippers, i.e. the unchaste Sisna (phallus) is derived from (the root) snath (to pierce)
not approach our sanctuary, i. e. our truth, or sacrifice.”-Nirukta 4.19. 14

Yaska catches on what both the verses clearly indicate - phallic worshippers to whom the Vedics
were hostile and did not desire to have them come close to their society. Calling phallic worship
‘unchaste’ is the point of the view of the outsider observers and not of the people who knew
ethos of it.

Even if we overlook the exaggerations or misinterpretation about phallic worship of the poets of
the verses, it makes clear that the Vedic people were not the phallic worshippers of any kind.
Moreover, there was hostility between the Vedics and the phallic worshipers. It is uncertain
whether these phallic worshippers Rig Veda talks about belonged to IGVC or to some other
civilisation because the phallic worship was practiced in other regions on the globe as well in
ancient times.

Westropp states that, “This worship was so general as to have spread itself over a large part of
the habitable globe; for it flourished for many ages in Egypt and Syria, Persia, Asia Minor,
Greece and Italy; it was and is vigor in India and many parts of Africa, and was found in
America on its discovery by the Spaniards.” 15

The phallic worship was divine enough to connect human with the Lord creator, Westropp
further clarifies. Hence, we cannot ascribe any specific region or human society to have it
introduced first but it could have been rather an independent phenomenon. Vedic verses could be
talking about the phallic worshipers of Persia or India, to which is not certain from the Vedic
verses.

That the Indus society worshipped male and female sexual organs and their personified images is
clear and undeniable from the excavated finds at the IGVC. It is clear from the Rig Vedic texts
that the Vedic people had organised their religion around the fire sacrifices and worshipped
abstract deities. There is no slightest indication that the both societies shared anything, even if in
every possibility they knew each other. Both the societies had different faiths, which clashed
with each other. ‘The Phallus cult has no place in Vedic rituals. The God Phallus (Shisna Deva) is
however mentioned in Rig Veda (7.21.5, 10.99.3) as well as in Nirukta (4.29) but its worship is
banned.” Thus states Alain Daniélou.16 There is no reference to the Yoga in Rig Veda either.

Rig Veda also refers to the ayajju, ayajvan, (those do not perform fire sacrifice), anindra (those
who do not have god like Indra) anyavrata (having different religious rites) etc. indicating how
their religion was set around fire sacrifice and how they distinguished other societies they came
across.

Associating Vedic culture with the IGVC thus becomes seriously problematic to the
overenthusiastic Vedicist scholars.

However, there are other aspects as well of the Indus and Vedic culture, which demands serious
comparison to eliminate the partial views of the Vedicists those constantly attempt to put claim
on the IVC.
MATERIAL CULTURE

We have abundant physical proof that show the peculiarities of Indus-Ghaggar valley society.
We have Rig Veda for a proof in which Vedic social structure, their deities, their economy and
their general awareness of the surrounding world is described at places. Let us compare the
IGVC and Vedic culture from the available sources.

1. None of the Veda mentions the abundantly found remains of Phallic and Venus worship
practices at the Indus sites. Had the Vedic people been the progenitors of the Indus culture,
naturally being part of phallic worship, certainly would also have made mentions of it in the
Rig Veda apart from their religious ritual Yajnya. Rather, the Rig Veda seems to be hostile
towards the phallic worshipers. The Rig Veda clearly makes distinction between sacrificers
and non-sacrificers. (i.e. see RV 1.33)
2. No Indus seal depicts image of the fire sacrifice, which was soul of the Vedic civilisation.
Rather, the images over the seals go contrary to the Vedic religious thought.
3. There is no slightest hint in the Rig Veda that the Vedics conducted trade with other
civilisations. There is no mention of local or foreign trade commerce or even cognates for
trade or trade related activities in the Rig Veda. Abundant proof is available from
excavations in the IGVC and other contemporary civilisations, from Iran to Mesopotamia, to
prove that the IGVC trade with them was by sea as well as surface routes. B
4. The Vedic society was mainly pastoral as evidenced from the Vedic literature. The cattle
were their treasured possession and most of the prayers are for the abundant growth of the
same. They knew the agriculture but it was their secondary occupation. There is no cognate
for ‘Plough’ in Vedic Sanskrit but they used a loan word ‘Langal’ from other languages for
plough. However, the IGVC was mostly agrarian, industrial and mercantile society as
evidenced from the excavations, unlike the Vedics. Rather, the Vedics show great jealousy of
the Panis who were expert traders.
5. The Rig Veda has no mention of fired bricks, brick-paved roads, public baths or granaries
that was integral part of almost every Indus settlement. Bricks find first mention in Yajr
Veda, a later work and extensively in the Brahmanas. 17 However, noted historian Dr. Ram
Sharan Sharma stated, “…And yet all these features can be expected if its culture were urban.
Fired bricks are a striking feature of the Harappans, and no Bronze Age civilisation can boast
of them on such a large scale. But this important construction material is unknown to the Rig
Veda. In the great British archaeologist Mortimer Wheeler's view, there is no granary in the
pre-classical world comparable in terms of specialist design and monumental dignity to the
examples from the two Indus cities. But because of the absence of urbanism, the Vedic
people did not need granaries, and consequently, the Rig Veda has no term for granary.” 18
Had the Vedic Aryans be at the least part of the IGVC, they would have cognates for the
materials and structures in question.

6. The Vedic society was horse centered as evidenced from its numerous mentions in the Rig
Veda with one verse dedicated to him. (RV 1.171) Many personal names are horse and
chariot oriented. It was earlier assumed that the horse was unknown to the Indians until the
Aryan invaders introduced them. However, this is not completely true. There are some proofs
of the horse bones found in the Indian subcontinent dating back to early phase of the
 Harappan settlements and even prior to that, although belonging to the different species of
horse. 19

7. This means the IGVC, too, was not unaware of the horses though it carried not much
significance in their culture. It is natural because the IGVC was mostly agrarian and
manufacturing/trading society where bull carried more importance to plow the fields and pull
the loaded carts. This is obvious from the fact that to show reverence towards bull Indus
people depicted him artistically on abundant seals whereas horse finds no place at all on any
of the seal. Use of horses to them must have been scanty and hence, carried no major
significance in their culture and hence, obviously, horse images would be redundant for them.
C

The Vedic people were a mostly pastoral society and hence, their life being horse-centered does
not come as surprise. Even in the life of modern day ranchers, horses carry significant
importance. Abundant mentions of the horse with respect in the Rig Veda and the rite of horse
sacrifice proves the same.

No place for the horses in the IGVC iconography does simply mean that the horses carried
negligible significance in their civilisation unlike of the Vedic society. In fact, this clearly
suggests that the Rig Vedics had no connection whatsoever with Indus Valley civilisation. Had it
been the case horse would have found prominence in IGVC’s early and later iconography.

Moreover, the horse chariot issue has unnecessarily been over debated by the supporters of the
AIT/AMT or OIT propagandists for the sake of proving their futile baseless theories. Even if
there was no slightest indication of presence of horse in IGVC, it wouldn’t prove for the lack of
that knowledge they were subjugated by the people who knew horse and chariots! The
suggestion was ridiculous because the vast territory of the IGVC couldn’t have been
overwhelmed by the intruders at one go! No matter, comparatively weak in absence of horse
driven chariots, but there would be protests lasting for longer time. The advantage to IGVC
people was that they knew the local geographies very well whereas supposed intruder Aryans
didn’t. Only horse and chariots wouldn’t help to win. And most importantly there is no slightest
proof that the decline of the IGVC was result of any vicious war won by the mighty invaders
who had tamed the horses and used spoke-wheeled chariots!

Even if considered peaceful migration of the Aryans in India, still the horse-chariot argument
wouldn’t stand, because, it is well known and accepted fact that the Indus people were not
isolated society but was well connected with the rest of the civilisations for trade and commerce.
They, in all probabilities, wouldn’t have been ignorant of the horses. If useful, would have
imported them from the known sources. Anyway, India has been well known for horse import
from historical times. Horse presence couldn’t have been a criterion to prove presence of the
Aryans. But its absence from Indus iconography certainly proves there was no presence of Vedic
Aryans in IGVC.

However, the horse-chariot debate has been overrated by the supremacist scholars to no avail.
8. The images of unicorn are abundantly found in IGVC on various seals. The one-horned
animal, labelled as unicorn, could be rhinoceros known to the IGVC people. Dr Ram Sharan
Sharma opines, “…The term ganda or khadga is used for the rhinoceros in Sanskrit, and the
term ekasrnga for both the unicorn and the rhinoceros, but none of these terms occurs in the
Rig Veda.” 20
9. Vedic people seem to have been at constant wars from the Rig Vedic texts, using variety of
arms and armors. At the Indus sites, the finds of arms are meager with no find of armors at
all. The IGVC cannot be regarded as a warring society the way the Vedic society was.
Warring people would naturally have the warlike god, and we find him in the form of the
Indra in Rig Veda who helps Vedic people win the wars. However, it is not justifiable to
infer from the meager findings of the weapons that the Indus people were peace loving
people. Most probably, either the Indus-Ghaggar civilisation was unified under a single rule
or had established cordial relations with every city-state, minimising the war like occasions.
Yet it is clear that the IGVC was a prosperous civilisation and the peace that follows in
prosperous period was fairly enjoyed by the IGVC. Rather, it appears from the Rig Veda that
the Vedic people were seekers of the wealth and all the time were engaged in the wars for
wealth hunting, cattle being the treasured wealth to them. Tarkateertha Laxmanshastri Joshi
states that Rig Vedic Aryans’ main profession seems to have been loot the cattle, food and
lands of the Das, Dasyu and Panis. This condition certainly cannot be of the prosperous
society, such as of IGVC. 21
10. Students of the Indus civilisation know very well about the abundant finds of variety of the
seals bearing assorted motifs and script at every site. These finds exhibit their cultural beliefs
and their awareness of the script. There is a debate amongst the scholars whether the script
appears on the seals represents language or they are non-linguistic symbols. D However, none
of such practice finds mention in the Rig Veda. There is even no cognate for writing or script
in the Rig Veda. Here the suggestion is not that the Vedics did not know the script; it simply
is that there is no mention of the seal making, motifs on it and the script. Had the Vedics
been progenitors or part of the Indus-Ghaggar civilisation, there would have been some
mention of the widely held practice that involves not only religious beliefs but also the
commercial practices of the IGVC.
11. Plenty of ornament and other goods manufacturing sites have unearthed at the IGVC sites.
There is no mention in the Rig Veda of such manufacturing. Besides, there is no mention of
harbors though Indus people had many of them, including artificial harbor like of Lothal. So
much that scholars seriously doubt whether the Vedic Aryans even knew the sea or not. (The
term Samudra in Rig Veda does not essentially mean the sea but it also means lake or pond at
many instances.)

Had the Vedic people migrated from India to the West, as some scholars try to suggest, and if
they were progenitors of the IGVC, the major question arises why they did not carry the script,
Indus religious beliefs and archeological practices along with them? If so-called indigenous
Aryans, if supposed, left the Indian territories long before the IGVC was founded, the whole
premise of their theories do collapse because it would be ridiculous and unsupported argument.
Vedic people certainly did know the walled cities and the people residing in them. Attempts to
prove Rig Veda pre-Harappan thus doesn’t help Vedicist scholars.
12. The Rig Veda mentions destructions of several cities of Dasyus by Indra. These cities were
made of stones (“Asmanmayi” RV 4.30.20) or of metal (“Ayasi”, RV 2.20.8, 4.26.3). We do
not know for sure what Vedic people of Rig Vedic times meant by Ashman and Ayas, or to
whose cities they were referring to because the Indus cities were built of fired bricks, not of
the stones or metal of any kind thus does not fit in the Rig Vedic descriptions. In all
probability, they were talking about the BMAC or other sites, not Indus-Ghaggar.

Dasas and Dasyus (Dahae and Dakhyu) were residents of ancient Iran. Therefore, in all
probabilities, they could have been referring to the stone cities of them. Possibly, Ayas, too,
was used alternatively for stone and metal for their hardness. Whatsoever might be the case,
the Vedic people certainly did not reside in the walled cities or even towns; they were rather
village dwellers and preferred to be so until the Brahmana era. 22 Fired bricks for fire altars
came into the use in late Vedic times. This clearly suggests there was not any link of the
Vedics with the IGVC. Otherwise, they would have known some civil practices of the IGVC.
13. Rig Veda doesn’t know cotton or it does not have any cognate for it. IGVC people were
expert cotton weavers. The Rig Vedic people seem to have been using wool for clothing, but
natural for the people living in extreme climatic conditions.
14. IGVC people were master architects. The drainage system and stepped Great Baths had
central characteristic of the IGVC. However, no such practice finds mention in the Rig Veda.

These facts forced some indigenous Aryan theorists like Kazanas and others to place the Rig
Vedic time prior to the emergence of the IGVC.E However, we have seen in the previous chapter
that in absence of the Rig Vedic Saraswati River in Indian geography do not make their claim
valid. Vedic scholars can stretch back Rig Veda’s period to the Ice Age if they want to (and
many enthusiastic amateur scholars already have attempted it!) but the Rig Vedic texts and other
parallel evidence does not correspond to their claim of its being so antique.

Looking at the discrepancies that arise from the closer look at the Vedic culture mentioned in the
Vedas and the physical finds of the Indus sites, it is impossible to even imagine that the
progenitors of the Indus civilisation were the Vedic Aryans. Even it is almost ridiculous to state
that the Indus and the Vedic people came into any contact so much so to influence each other’s
culture.

However, to end with, we must discuss on the so called finds of hearths those are considered by
few of the archeologists to be sacrificial fire altars thus making the claim the presence of the
Indo Aryans in the IGVC.

Archeologist, excavator at Lothal, Dr SR Rao, was one to claim that the fire pits for ritualistic
purpose and not as domestic ovens. “It is obvious that they could not serve any other purpose
than a ritualistic one.” He also had claimed that the some larger fire pits excavated near the
smaller ones, meant for community fire worship. Close to a larger fire pit was a terracotta ‘ladle’
to which Rao thought to be used for pouring clarified butter into the sacrificial fire. From this,
Rao precluded that the presence of the Indo-Aryans was in the final stages of occupation of the
town. He stated that, “…it is not only in the final stages of Kalibangan but also in the early
stages of Harappa culture at Lothal and Kalibangan that altars for fire worship and animal
sacrifice were built and but made use of it.” 23
Similarly, some fire pits were recorded at other sites such as Banavali, Casal at Amri etc
emboldened the archeologists to claim the Indo-Aryans’ presence in the IGVC sites, which
ultimately was made to mean that the residents of the IGVC were Indo-Aryans.

However, the identification of fire pits as fire altars was not received well by other archeologists
and scholars. MK Dhavalikar had remarked that the fire pits could have been used for cooking
and baking. He found them similar in size, plan and shape to his excavations at Inamgaon
(Maharashtra.) For Dhavalikar, the clay stele in the centre of the pits, noted by excavators, “bears
the striking resemblance with the clay tava …that is in use in Maharashtra. …which was
obviously for baking bread.” Finally he concludes that, “since the Kalibangan fire altars are
identical in every respect with those in Inamgaon, their association with the religious beliefs of
the people becomes doubtful.” 24 F

(Fire pits at Kalibangan)

If one looks at the so called fire altars as an independent observer and if he knows something of
the Vedic practices of performing fire sacrifices, public or domestic, he will find they do not at
all resemble any way with the Vedic ritualistic altars. Moreover, the fire altars could not be
attached to each other, which makes it almost impossible to conduct ritual performance. They
cannot be circular or oblong as well. In the Vedic fire sacrificial rites, every direction carries
special significance, and requires space to seat from all the sides. The hearths in the picture are
so close to each other it does not indicate that it had any ritualistic purpose.

Bryant opined on this hearth debate that, “One would also have to note that Lal's identification of
these altars as Vedic seems to be primarily influenced by the fact that there were seven of them,
thereby paralleling the number of hearths in various Vedic sacrifices. However, while this is
correct, these sacrifices do not just consist of these seven hearths but include a variety of other
hearths as well, none of which were unearthed in Kalibangan.” 25 Thus we can clearly see that the
hearths found in Kalibangan and elsewhere cannot be connected with the Vedic ritualistic fire
altars.”
Jane McIntosh comments on the hearth finds of IGVC, “…..these bore some resemblance to the
hearths used by the later inhabitants of the Deccan, which sometimes had a central clay support
for the pots. This therefore begs the question whether the domestic ‘fire altars’ were in fact
ordinary hearths or, conversely, whether all domestic hearths could have been used in family
worship as well as cooking.” 26

This clearly shows that there is obvious doubt in the minds of the scholars whether to find
sacrificial altars in the hearths or domestic ovens in the excavated structures.

However, there is another identification of the Kalibangan fire pits has been forwarded by
Archeologist BK Thapar who states “Noteworthy structures exposed by the excavations
consisted of (a) a 2m-wide brick-on-edge pavement and (b) a partially excavated house, showing
several hearths, fire-pits, etc., pointing perhaps to its use as a metal-smith’s workshop.” 27

However, as Dhavalikar observes, we too have to agree that the fire pits were earthen ovens
meant for cooking, roasting and baking. It actually attracts no necessity to attach it somehow
with Vedic fire altars. The find of the ladle near the oven is but natural rather that connecting it
with the Vedic sacrifices to pour the purified butter!

As Thapar have thought them to be metal-smiths workshop, it, too, at the least in Kalibangan
case, is a possibility because having several hearths lined up in a house of an industrial city, its
use for metal works too, may not come as a surprise.

Besides, let me attract the readers to the fact that though Vedic and Avestan religion were fire
centered, it does not mean at all that in the other civilisation fire did not carry any significance.
Igniting fire has been the first thing human invented and it carried prominent importance in all
the civilisations spread over the globe. Thus finding hearths anywhere does not mean at all that
they were related with the Vedic or Avestan fire centric ritualistic practices. Those could have
been used differently as well other than for cooking, even as a permanent camp-fire! But no Rig
Vedic description supports this as nowhere it is mentioned that the sacrificial fire was used for
cooking day to day meals as well!

Hence, from the above discussion, we arrive at the only conclusion that the IGVC did not bear
any Aryan or Vedic element in its overall structure. Nor did the Vedic society seem to know
anything closely about the IGVC culture. Both were distinct cultures having different lifestyles
and religious practices. The IGVC timeline is almost certain because of carbon dating, but there
is no conclusive material, written or archaeological proofs to determine the Vedic era. If looked
at the various opinions about the Vedic age, we find the difference to be spanning from 25,000
BC to 1,500 years BC. This is not right science. The Vedic people seem to have come across the
phallic worshipping people, but we are not sure whether they were the IGVC people for phallic
worship extended in the most part of the world.

However, the modern revisionists try to establish the Vedic connection with the IGVC, no matter
how illogical and sometimes even foolish such an attempt might be, to recreate their history on
flimsy ground just like the Europeans did while tracing up their own history in hypothetical PIE
group of the people. This should be the matter of concern for the historians of the new
generations.

PAINTED GREY WARE CULTURE

We must discuss the Painted Grey Ware culture, dated back to the period from maximum of
1,400 BC until 600 BC, which was normally attributed to the invading people, mostly to the
second wave of the Aryans. Painted Grey Ware (PGW) culture indicates that there was a sudden
change in the manufacturing process and pattern of the earthen wares in IGVC regions. What
Archeologist B. B. Lal says on this is as follows.

“For reasons still not fully known to us, the Indus Civilization withered away. But the authors of
the Painted Grey Ware Culture, clearly identifiable with the later Vedic Aryans (if not yet with
the Rigvedic Aryans as well), are the ones who provided the seeds of philosophic thought for
which India is known all over the world. And it was not mere spirituality that they bequeathed.
Their contribution to material life is no less significant. The Painted Grey Ware people, with
their iron technology, are the first to have brought about a revolution in the settlement pattern in
the Ganges-Jamuna basin – the Madhyadesa of old. Their predecessors in this region, namely,
the copper-hoard people, seem to have been merely sporadic occupants, leaving hardly any mark
on the civilization to be. Further, it is the Painted Grey Ware period that brought northern India
to the threshold of what is known as the second urbanization.” 28

The reason why I am quoting BB Lal here is that he changed his entire stance, after joining
rightist wing after his retirement, and attempted to connect the IGVC with the Vedic people.
There was attempt to ascribe the PGW culture to the invading Aryans, second wave, who entered
Indian subcontinent after so called tragic decline of the IGVC. The basic assumption was that the
Aryans knew iron and used it extensively in their weaponry. This assumption does not find any
substantial proof in the Rig Veda, because the word ‘Ayas’ just means metal or even stone, not
necessarily iron or copper. Kazanas, too, is opponent of this view for his purpose to stretch back
the Rig Vedic era prior to Iron Age.29 One can see from the above quote of BB Lal, how an
archaeologist can blatantly make the unsustainable claims.

However, the grey terracotta female figurines those have been excavated at Jakhera, identified as
probable mother goddess images in PGW culture defeats Aryan element in it too! Another main
aspect one should keep in mind that since in recent excavations, the late Harappan pottery and
PGW were found together at Bhagvanpura, Dabheri (Haryana) and Manada (Jammu) without
any breaks, it discards the idea of any invasion. In fact, the PGW culture just suggests gradual
change in the pottery making patterns, nothing else. Allchin have questioned the term like
‘Painted Grey Ware Period’ or ‘Painted Grey Ware People’ as they were not entirely different
from the late Harappans. The PGW sequence apparently comes after ‘Ochre Colored Pottery’
traditions followed by ‘Black and Red Burnished Ware’. 30

The PGV culture can only be attributed to the technological shifts of the society that is a
common practice followed by the every civilisation. Such changes occur either due to the
economical fluctuations or the change in fashions accompanied by new inventions, such as of
iron. It is just insane to attribute such changes to the invaders or intruders unless there is any
irrefutable proof of such invasion on archaeological grounds. The Rig Veda too, does not give
any, nor the post-Vedic literature, then why so fanciful fairytale like ideas?

To sum up, there seems no spiritual or materialistic connection between the IGVC and the Vedic
culture. We do not know for sure what the Vedic era was as there is no conclusive evidence to
indicate it. We find close affiliation or similarities between the Avestan and the Vedic
civilisation, but the Avestan age, too, is equally uncertain. We need to understand why it would
be so? Why there are blatant claims on the IGVC by the people whose origin is so uncertain?

Let us probe further!

Bibliography

1. ‘The Indus Civilization: A Contemporary Perspective’, by Gregory L. Possehl, Pub.:

AltaMira Press, ( U.S) 2002, p. 142.

2. ‘The Quest for the Origins of Vedic Culture: The Indo-Aryan Migration Debate’, by Edwin
Bryant, Pub.: Oxford University Press, 2001, p. 163.

3. ‘The Ancient Indus Valley: New Perspectives’, by Jane R McIntosh, Pub.: ABC-CLIO Inc.,
2008, p. 283.

4. ‘Vaidik Sanskruticha Vikas’, by Tarkateertha Laxmanshastri Joshi, Pub.: Pradnyapathashala

Mandal, third edition, 1996, p. 35.

5. Ibid.

6. ‘Bharatiya Sanskruti Kosha’ (Vol. 8), Pub.: Bharatiya Sanskruti Koshamandal, third edition,
2000, p. 264-65.

7. ‘Vaidik Sanskruticha Vikas’,by Tarkateertha Laxmanshastri Joshi, Pub.: Pradnyapathashala

Mandal, third edition, 1996, p. 93-94.

8. ‘Aryans in the Rigveda’, by Franciscus Bernardus Jacobus Kuiper, Pub.: Rodopi B.V., 1991,
p. 14.

9. ‘The Concept of Rudra-Siva through the Ages’, by Mahadev Chakravarti, Pub.: Motilal
Banarasidas, 1986, p. 130

10. ‘Vaidik Sanskruticha Vikas’,by Tarkateertha Laxmanshastri Joshi, Pub.: Pradnyapathashala

Mandal, third edition 1996, p. 37-38.

11. ‘Hinduism’, by R. N. Dandekar, in ‘Historia Religionum: Religions of the Present’, Volume

2,  edited by G. Widengren, Pub.: E. G. Brill-Leiden, 1971, p. 245-46.
12. ‘Vaidik Sanskruticha Vikas’,by Tarkateertha Laxmanshastri Joshi, Pub.: Pradnyapathashala
Mandal, third edition, 1996, p. 32.

13. ‘Hinduism’, by R. N. Dandekar, in ‘Historia Religionum: Religions of the Present’ (Vol.

2),  edited by G. Widengren, Pub.: E. G. Brill-Leiden, 1971, p. 246.

14. ‘The Nighantu & The Nirukta, The oldest Indian Treaties on Etymology, Philology, and
semantics’, By Laxman Saroop, Pub.: Motilal Banarasidas, New Delhi, Second reprint,
1967.

15. ‘Ancient Symbol Worship: Influence of the Phallic Idea in the Religions of Antiquity’, by
Hodder Michael Westropp and Charles Staniland Wake, Pub.: J. W. Boutan, 1875, p. 21.

16. ‘The Phallus: Sacred Symbol of Male Creative Power’, by Alain Daniélou, Pub.: Bear &
Co., 1995.
17. ‘Collapse of the Aryan Invasion Theory” by Nicholas Kazanas, a paper presented in 2010
in a seminar, “How Deep are the Roots of Indian Civilization? : An Archeological and
Historical Perspective” held at New Delhi.

18. ‘The Indus and the Saraswati’, by Ram Sharan Sharma, (Available online at:
http://www.indowindow.com/sad/article.php?child=17&article=10)

19. ‘The Quest for the Origins of Vedic Culture: The Indo-Aryan Migration Debate’, by Edwin
Bryant, Pub.: Oxford University Press, 2001, p. 169-73.

20. ‘The Indus and the Saraswati’, by Ram Sharan Sharma, (Available online at
http://www.indowindow.com/sad/article.php?child=17&article=10)

21. ‘Vaidik Sanskruticha Vikas’,by Tarkateertha Laxmanshastri Joshi, Pub.: Pradnyapathashala

Mandal, third edition, 1996, p. 41.

22. Ibid, page 33-34.

23. ‘The Quest for the Origins of Vedic Culture: The Indo-Aryan Migration Debate’, by Edwin
Bryant, Pub.: Oxford University Press, 2001, p. 160.

24. Ibid.

25. Ibid.

26. ‘The Ancient Indus Valley: New Perspectives’, by Jane McIntosh, Pub.: ABC-CLIO, 2007, p.
279.

27. ‘PRE-INDUS AND EARLY INDUS CULTURES OF PAKISTAN AND INDIA’, by J.G. Shaffer
and B.K. Thapar, p. 268. (Available at:
https://en.unesco.org/silkroad/sites/silkroad/files/knowledge-bank-article/vol_I%20silk
 %20road_pre%20indus%20and%20early%20indus%20cultures%20of%20pakistan%20and
%20india.pdf)

28. ‘THE PAINTED GREY WARE CULTURE OF THE IRON AGE’, by B. B. Lal, ‘History of
Civilizations of Central Asia: The Dawn of Civilization: Earliest Time to 700 BC’, (Vol. 1),
edited by A. H. Dani, Pub.: UNESCO Publishing, 1992, p. 440.

29. ‘Rig Veda is Pre-Harappan’, by Nicholas Kazanas, June 2006, later published in ‘Sanskrit
Studies’, (Vol. 2), edited by Wagish Shukla, D.K. Printworld, 2007. (Available online at:
http://www.ifih.org/RigVedaIsPreHarappan.htm)

30. ‘ The Rise of Civilization in India and Pakistan’”by Bridget Allchin, pub.: Cambridge
University Press, 1982, p. 318-21.

Notes:

A. Etymology of the Rudra, as given by Yaska is the one ‘who weeps or makes to weep.’
Vedic and Purana literature give several stories of his birth. As per the Aitareya
Brahmna’s version, once Prajapati took incest for his daughter and taking form of the
dove mated with her. All the gods got angry about this incestuous act, but none among
them had enough power to punish Prajapati. Hence, they gathered whatever was fierce
in them and made out body of Rudra from that to assign him the task of killing
Prajapati. Rudra did so only after the gods conceded to his command that he will be the
master of animals. (A.B.-3.13.9). Rudra’s weapons described in the Rig Veda are meant
for killing animals (RV. 1.114.10) and hence, there are prayers to him for sparing the
people, cows and horses from killing. (RV. 1.114.8) (Bharatiya Sanskruti Kosha, Vol. 8,
page 264-66)
Rig Veda also nowhere mentions Uma, consort of Shiva. Bharatiya Sanskruti Kosha
points out, “Shaivait religions some features cannot be found in the Rudra worship of
Vedics. Being a main distinct feature that the Shiva worship is always conducted in
phallic form. Phallic worship is far ancient and its traces are found all over the
globe……Still the question remains unanswered, why Shiva worship in phallic form?
The answer is, Vedic Rudra was fearsome and destroyer, but Shiva, worshipped by the
non-Aryans, was the creator of the universe, cherisher and was associated with fertility
of land and animals including human being. Naturally what else symbol could be
appropriate to represent these qualities but phallus?” (Bharatiya Sanskruti Kosha, Vol
9, page 308-9)
The distinction was always clear between Vedic Rudra and Shiva, though the futile
attempts were made to assimilate the both.

B. There are arguments from Indian Homeland proponents that the Vedic people indeed
knew sea and maritime trade. Archeologist B. B. Lal too is one of them. In this regard,
Ram Sharan Sharma stated, “Lal finds ‘ample evidence... of sea trade’, and speaks of
‘tremendous wealth’ obtained from it. In support, he quotes a verse from the Ninth Book of
the Rig Veda together with its translation by the 19th century British Sanskritist Griffith.
The verse reads: ‘rayah samudranscaturo asmabhyam soma visvatah, apavasva
sahasrinah’. The translation reads: ‘From every side, O Soma, for our profit, pour thou
forth four seas filled full of riches thousandfold.’ We may add that the Ninth Book in which
this verse occurs was solely devoted to Soma, and added to the main text later. Further,
Griffith’s translation of asmabhyam as ‘for our profit’ creates an impression of profit
arising out of trade; such a confusion is not created by Karl Friendrich Geldner, whose
German translation of the Rg Veda (1951) is considered the most authoritative translation
of the century. We should also note that the four seas are termed imaginary by Griffith.

“In this context the commentary of Sayana makes more sense. According to it, the
sacrifice prays to Soma for the possession of the whole world bounded by the four seas.
In any case there is no reference whatsoever to tremendous wealth derived from sea-
trade.”
(Available online at: http://www.indowindow.com/sad/article.php?
child=17&article=10)

C. The Indian Vedicist scholars were rather busy in finding traces of the horse in IGVC
than establishing Vedic connection with it. Shocking forgery of a horse seal was exposed by
Michael Witzel and Steve Farmer. Noted historian, N. S. Rajaram and Natwar Jha claimed
to have read the Indus script and the language on the seals being late Vedic Sanskrit. To
support the claim, Rajaram presented a blurry image of a “horse seal”, the first pictorial
evidence ever claimed of Harappan horses. The claim of this find and decipherment of
Indus script had made global headlines in 1999. However, within a fortnight, the image was
proved by the above mentioned authors as being a forgery and fraud. The image was
created from a computer distortion of a “unicorn bull” seal. The claim of reading Harappa
script too was proven to be fraudulent, thus making the laughing stock of Vedicist scholars.
(‘Horseplay in Harappa : The Indus Valley Decipherment Hoax’, by Michael Witzel and
Steve Farmer, Frontline, 13 Oct. 2000. Available online at:
http://www.safarmer.com/frontline/horseplay.pdf)

D. Steve Farmer et al. (2004) claims in their paper ‘The Collapse of the Indus-Script
Thesis:The Myth of a Literate Harappan Civilization’ (Steve Farmer, Richard Sproat, and
Michael Witzel, 2004) that the Indus people were not a literate society as it has been
claimed. The authors suggest that the Indus script appearing on the seals does not
represent language but the non-linguistic-symbols those could have served key religious,
political and social functions without encoding speech or serving as formal memory aids.
The authors state, “All Indus inscriptions on every medium share one striking feature:
extreme brevity. The longest on one surface has 17 symbols; less than 1/100 carry as many
as 10. Many Indus inscriptions - if ‘inscription’ is really an appropriate term – contain only
one or two symbol.” The claim is based on the logic that Indus sign frequencies prove that
the Indus system was neither able to record speech nor it was intended to. (Available online
at http://www.safarmer.com/fsw2.pdf)
 In reply to this claim Kenoyer et al. state that “….We, however, contend that given the
development in the system of inscriptions over time as seen at Harappa and given the
extensive use of the “signs” or “symbols” both formally and informally and on many
media, making the distinction between a language-based script and not-so-tied-to-
language symboling system is not particularly interesting distinction. In any event, in
the absence of multi-lingual texts, and/or a successor symboling system or script there
can be no widely accepted understanding what the symbols or signs of the “Indus
script” actually meant to those who employed them and thus there can be no true
resolution of this issue.” (‘Inscribed Objects from Harappa Excavations’, by J. Mark
Kenoyer and Richard H. Meadow in ‘Corpus of Indus Seals’, (Vol. 3), ‘New Material,
untraced Objects, and collections outside India and Pakistan’, edited by Asko Parpola,
B. M. Pande and Petteri Koskikallio, Pub.: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia, 2010, footnote.
Page XlIV)
However, it seems Indian scholars as yet has not joined the debate. If the inscriptions
are not the linguistic records and are just the symbols connoting some meaning to the
people of those times, the decipherment of those symbols will be almost impossible. In
my opinion, looking at the number of symbols, about 400, they could have been
representing the language and not ‘formal memory aid’ as Farmer et al. suggests.
Memorising as many symbols that did not encode the speech would be a difficult
situation, no matter many symbols are found being used just once on the so far
excavated and studied seals. It would be wrong to assume people invented some
symbols to be used for single time that did not carry any linguistic meaning. And, even
if accepted that they are symbols not meant to encode speech, none of the Veda
mentions such symboling system, hence again their supposed connection with IGVC
remains unsupported.

E. Nicholas Kazanas argued that, “… the RV has no knowledge at all of many features that
characterise the Harappan culture which began to emerge solidly c3000. Since the bulk of
the RV must be assigned to a period before 3000 and since this is by general consensus
stated to have been composed in Saptasindhu, then the Indo-Aryans or Vedic people were
present in that location before 3000 and must therefore be regarded as indigenous by 1500,
when, they are alleged to move in by the Aryan Invasion/Immigration Theory.” (‘Rig Veda
is Pre-Harappan’, by Nicholas Kazanas, June 2006, p. 1, later published in ‘Sanskrit
Studies’ (Vol. 2), edited by Wagish Shukla, D.K. Printworld, 2007)

Similarly K. D. Sethna too had set period of Rig Veda to pre-Harappan era that has
been echoed by scholars like Coenraad Elst, Talageri etc. It is agreed by these scholars
decisively that there was no invasion of PIE speaking people to India and since there
was no invasion they must be indigenous and if there is total absence of Harappan
elements in the Rig Veda, Vedic times must be anterior to the beginning of Harappan
civilization.
The stand in itself is faulty because though Vedic people were not urban society, they
were very well aware of its existence. They knew the fortified cities and had waged
battles against the people living in them. They knew the traders and their riches. The
despised them and yet occasionally had accepted gifts from them. They did not know
cotton just because the land Vedic people had inhibited (Helmand region) did not grow
 the cotton. Kazanas claims that horse was domesticated in India prior to 3000 BC. This
argument is rather funny. Presence of the domesticated horses, anywhere for that
matter, cannot be the argument to prove presence of Indo-Aryans at any rate. Rather
this argument defeats his purpose because the IGVC does not show any kind of
prominence given to this animal; rather it is neglected even in iconography. The most
revered animal by the IGVC people was bull. If horses were known in 3000 BC to
indigenous Aryans and if they were progenitors of the IGVC, the most revered animal
to them, the horse, would have found prominence in iconography of the IGVC, not the
bull!

F. MK Dhawalikar states, “At Inamgaon, houses were of different sizes, ranging from 5X3 Meters
to 7X5 meters. Big houses were divided by a small wall. Inside the every home was dug an oblong
ditch to keep the fire. Not to let it extinguish by the blowing winds, the ditches were bordered by
raised mud- plaster. Same ditch, little larger in size, were found dug in the courtyards of the houses.
In such ditches, made for the fire, centrally, flat stone were set, firm, to keep cooking pot on it.”
(Trans mine.)
(“Tamrapashanayuga”, by MK Dhavalikar, in “Maharashtra Rajya Gazetteer, Itihas: Prachin Kal
(Khand 1), pub.: Darshanika Vibhag, Sanskrutik Karya Vibhag, Maharashtra Shasan, 2002, page
69-70)

The finds of the IGVC, those claimed to be sacred fire altars, actually do resemble with the
domestic ovens of the ancient times. The habit seems to be of the Vedicist scholars, anything that
relates with fire, no matter whether for potters or metal-smiths kilns, found are is vehemently been
connected with fire-altars to anyhow prove the presence of Vedic people in IGVC.
 Chapter 4

Geography of Rig Veda and Avesta

There are two distinct theories, which deal with the origin of the Vedic people. One theory
proposes the Aryan invasion or migration in India and other deals with indigenous Aryans
migrating from India to the West. Though the Indian Urheimat Theory had its origin in the 18th
century, it was put forth in renewed enthusiasm by scholar Koenraad Elst and has been
enthusiastically promoted by Shrikant Talageri, Kalyanraman, David Frawly and NS Rajaram. It
is also supported by the eminent scholars like Kazanas. A

We have already discussed as to how the migration involving entire society or tribe deserting its
original habitat is a wrongly founded hypothesis. It is not possible that a comparatively backward
society like that of the Vedics, which supposedly immigrated to India to overwhelm a culturally
advanced society like that of Indus and yet did not leave any archaeological or anthropological
mark. The linguistic evidences that have been produced time and again to prove the migration
theories are so fragile that they do not support any PIE language theory. We have also discussed
in elaborate details as to whether the Ghaggar river could have been the Vedic Saraswati on the
geological and Rig Vedic grounds. We have also noted that there is not even the slightest proof
to connect the Ghaggar with the mighty Rig Vedic river Saraswati. On the same grounds, the
Indian homeland theory, too, collapses. There is no proof of migrating Indigenous Aryans to
spread out in the Western world as well!

The Invasion theory has now been almost abandoned by the scholars because there is not even
slightest evidence that can remotely prove the invading tribes subjugated the IGVC and to
establish their rule, to enforce their culture and languages overwhelmed their population.

As Allchins observes in regard with the invasion theories, “The intruders would have been able
to rename the rivers only if they were conquerors with the power to impose this. And, of course,
the same is true of their Vedic language: since no people would bother of their own free will to
learn a difficult, inflected foreign language, unless they had much to gain by this, and since the
Aryan immigrants had adopted the ‘material culture and lifestyle’ of the Harappans and
consequently, had little or nothing to offer to the natives, the latter would have adopted the new
language only under pressure. Hence, here again we discover that the substratum thinking is
invasion and conquest." 1

Dr Nicholas Kazanas says, true in this regards, "…But invasion is the substratum of all such
theories even if words like ‘migration’ are used. There could not have been an Aryan
immigration because (apart from the fact that there is no archaeological evidence for this), the
results would have been quite different. Immigrants do not impose their own demands or desires
on the natives of the new country: they are grateful for being accepted, for having the use of
lands and rivers for farming or pasturing and for any help they receive from the natives; in time
it is they who adopt the language (and perhaps the religion) of the natives. You cannot have a
migration with the results of an invasion." 2

Both the Alchins and Kazanas support what we have discussed in the first chapter of this book.
In both cases, the scholars agree that there was no invasion in India. Applying the same logic,
apparently, there could not have been migration of the indigenous Aryans from India to the West
because we do not find any archeological proof to support this theory. Outgoing hoards of
Indigenous Aryans, too, could not have enforced their language and culture on the natives of the
Western world for the same reasons, if at all they migrated. Hence, there was no migration in
India of the Vedic tribes or there could not have been any migration of the indigenous Vedic
Aryans to the West! We do not find any archaeological or cultural elements resembling to those
of IGVC or pre-IGVC anywhere in the West. If human beings move to another area in masses,
they will naturally carry their culture along with their language. We do not find any proof to
support the migration theory from either direction.

Bryant discusses both the theories on linguistic basis and finally concludes, “… there is not
likely to be more consensus in this regard among scholars in the present than there has been in
the past.” 3

There cannot be the consensus because both the parties to the debate have stuck to the migration
theories, from either direction. Dr Nicholas Kazanas, interestingly, wants to stretch back the time
of Rigveda by almost one and half millennium to adjust his theory with the preconceived time
when supposedly Satlej or Yamuna was feeding into the Ghaggar channel, i.e. the pre-Harappan
era.

However, unfortunately, as we have seen in the last chapters, geological surveys in the Ghaggar
channels do not support his theory. Hence, the possibility of Vedic Aryans being indigenous can
also be ruled out. In response to those who keep claiming that there was Aryan Invasion or
migration in India, Kenoyer remarks, “….Although the overall socioeconomic organisation
changed, continuities in technology, subsistence practices, settlement organisation, and some
regional symbols show that the indigenous population was not displaced by invading hordes of
Indo-Aryan speaking people. For many years, the 'invasions' or 'migrations' of these Indo-
Aryan-speaking Vedic/Aryan tribes explained the decline of the Indus civilisation and the sudden
rise of urbanisation in the Ganga-Yamuna Valley. This was based on simplistic models of
culture change and an uncritical reading of Vedic texts....” 4

We must understand that all scholars do not support migrations of the Indo-Iranians from
Andronovo culture. CC Lamberg-Karlovsky emphatically states, “There is absolutely no
archeological evidence for any variant of the Andronovo culture either reaching or influencing
the cultures of Iran or Northern India in the second millennium. Not a single artifact of
identifiable Andronovo type has been recovered from the Iranian plateau, northern India or
Pakistan.” 5

This is in line with our argument that the migration theories including peaceful trickle down
from any direction need to be abandoned in the light of the material evidence. Lamberg-
Karlovsky further confirms that the BMAC (Bactria-Margiana Archeological Complex) culture
that was spread in Iran and Afghanistan was independent of other cultures of those times. The
skeletal remains of BAMC sites and of Harappa, too, were profoundly different showing ethnic
diversity of both the people. 6 This defeats the purpose of the Vedicist scholars who blatantly
want to claim India to be Vedic Aryans homeland from where they dispersed to the west.

Having stated and quoted as above, being choiceless, we see that the both sides of the migration
debate mostly agree that at some stage, Indo-Iranians were situated in present day Afghanistan
from where they took different paths. It means that at the least for a few centuries, from wherever
they might have come, the so-called Indo-Iranians, as migrationist scholars claim, lived together
in the regions of the Iran that included modern Afghanistan. The Indigenous Vedic Aryan theory,
even if no migration attached to it, is problematic because the material evidence does not prove
it. The language of the Avesta and the Rig Veda are quite close to each other. So much so, J.
Harmatta observes, “In Antiquity, for example, the Avesta stood so near to the Vedic Sanskrit that
by making use of the phonetic correspondences between the two, we can transpose whole
Avestan sentences word by word, sound by sound, into Vedic Sanksrit.” 7

In my opinion, originally, the Rig Vedic dialect must have been quite closer, phonetically too, to
that of the Gathas than the language we find in presently available Rig Vedic texts. The Rig
Vedic language, from internal as well as external evidence, clearly appears to have gone through
significant modifications before it was compiled to the present form, which made Witzel to
determine Rig Veda being less archaic over old Avesta. 8

However, despite the fact that the PIE language theory stands on the conjecture of single location
origin and the subsequent migration, we have conclusive and irrefutable proof that there are
striking similarities in the languages of the old Avesta and the Rig Veda, which is not to be
found elsewhere except of few superficial resemblances. It is not a mere coincidence that the
geography, too, is commonly shared by both the holy scriptures. Besides, there is no
archaeological evidence available to prove that the Indo-Iranians came to their respective
locations from any other place. Neither the Gatha’s, nor the Rig Veda support any other
homeland. However, the linguistic closeness, striking similarities in personal names as well
geographical names leaves us with no room to think but accept the fact that both the societies
lived in the close proximity in that era from time unknown.

It will be pertinent to attempt to fix the exact location from where Mazdayasni religion emerged
to understand the possible location of the Vedic tribe(s). There can be little doubt that Avestan
and Rig Vedic tribes were settled in close vicinity, having not only the provincially independent,
but also similar dialects because of their geographical closeness.

We must not forget here that the scholars usually connect the date of Avesta with the
hypothetical movements of the so-called Aryans. Sixth century BCE date of Zoroaster that was
fixed earlier based on generation calculations by the Zoroastrian priests, which was 258 years
before the date of Alexander’s conquest of Persia, has now been mostly discarded. Other Greek
sources indicate the date of the prophet to be 5,000 years before the Trojan War, i.e. 6,000 years
BC. Based on the assumption that the PIE speakers entered Iran from Sintastha, Boyce dates the
Gathas of Zoroaster as upper limit of 1,500 BCE to lowest limit of 1,100 BCE. Mary Boyce
holds that, as cited by Bryant, the oldest Avestan texts do not mention the regions west of the
Iran and that they do not mention urban centres as well, indicating the prehistoric period.
Boyce’s view does not help to stretch back the Avestan history. However, it proves that it is one
of the oldest scripture. 9

We must keep it in mind here that the scholars have heatedly discussed the dates of the Avesta
and the Rig Veda and there has been no consensus on it so far. Max Muller fixed the time of the
Rig Veda at 1,200 BC. However, it has been questioned, debated and played with to suit
individual theories, such as that of the Avesta. Likewise, of late, the time of Gathas too has been
decided almost whimsically to prove Gathas were composed long after the time of early Rig
Veda. Talageri is one such scholar. 10 It is rather noteworthy that the exercises of dating of the
Gathas and the Rig Veda are mostly hypothetical, unsubstantiated by any material proof, mostly
based on the hypothetical date of separation of so-called Indo-Iranians. And this is why, in
absence of definitive proofs, not only Vedic, but Iranian scholars too tend to stretch back the
period as much as possible…with single motive to prove remote antiquity of their respective
religion/culture.

Naturally, there is disagreement over the period of both the scriptures. Most probable era of both
the cultures could be contemporary with BAMC (Bactria–Margiana Archaeological Complex)
period that ranges from 2,300 to 1,700 BCE. Some physical proof of Avestan Haoma (Rig Vedic
Soma) sacrificial practices are traced with the finds of the floral remains of leaves, grains which
after due analysis were proved to be the remains of Ephedra, a mild intoxicating herb.
Besides, the burial practices, fire altars, fire temples etc found at various BMAC sites are linked
to the proto-Zoroastrian identity by the scholars. 11 Though some of the identifications are
obscure to relate with Zoroastrians, we can safely conclude that the Zoroaster and his
reintroduced religion prospered during sometime between middle of the BMAC phase, i.e. 1,500
till 1,300 BC among variety of the ethnicities that lived in the vast region of ancient Iran and
slightly contemporaneous with the early Rig Vedic era. B

Geography of Avesta
The geography of the Avesta is not certain but various locations mentioned in the Avesta are
within and outer boundaries of ancient Iran. Different scholars believe that the possible candidate
for Airyanam Vaeja are either Hindukush, north of Syr Darya, north-eastern parts of Iran or
Afghan highlands etc where Zoroaster was born to Pourushaspa. Some scholars find the identity
of Airyanam Vaeja to be most insoluble or simply that the land being mythical having no real
existence. The land is thought to be most important to locate because it is considered the place
where Zoroaster was born and delivered his first sermon.

Whitney suggested in nineteenth century that, “Respecting the region in which the Avesta had its
origin we may speak with more confidence: it was doubtless Bactria and its vicinity, the
northeastern portion of the immense territory occupied by the Iranian people.” 12

Gherardo Gnoli states, “If we compare the first chapter of the Vidēvdād with the passages of
geographical interest that we come across mainly in the great yašts, we can conclude that the
geographical area of Avesta was dominated by the Hindu Kush range at the centre, the western
boundary being marked by the districts of Margiana, Areia, and Drangiana, the eastern one by
the Indo-Iranian frontier regions such as Gandhāra, Bunēr, the land of the ‘Seven Rivers’,
Sogdiana and, possibly, Chorasmia (which, however, is at the extreme limits) mark the boundary
to the north, Sīstān and Baluchistan to the south.” 13

The late Avestan scriptures describe Airyanam Vaeja as bellow:-

“The Daraja river is in Eranvej, on the bank (bar) of which was the dwelling of Pourushasp, the
father of Zartosht. Zartosht, when he brought the religion, first celebrated worship and
expounded in Eranvej, and Maidyok-mah received the religion from him.” (Eranvej is
transformed from Airyanam Vaeja in middle Persian texts.) 14

Though, the exact location of Airyanam Vaeja is not certain, the verses are indicating
undoubtedly that it was the birthplace of Zarathustra and the place where he delivered his first
sermon. Touting it as an original homeland or first settlement of the Indo-Iranians while on move
from South Russia would be a grave mistake as there is no proof to support such a theory. The
Iranians could have been settled in the same region, as they are now, for thousands of years even
before the Zoroaster preached his religion. Excavations at BMAC sites clearly suggest that the
region was populated since well before 6,000 BCE. Small incoming or outgoing immigration (in
any region for that matter) causing some mutual interactions and influence is not ruled out.
However, it would not be logical to imply that it was the homeland or temporary settlement of
the PIE people while on the move, because the same texts prove that it was not the homeland of
the entire or some PIE’s, but mere birthplace of the Prophet.

We must also note that before Zoroaster preached his religion, historic religions to which he
opposed and to which he reformed were already in existence. “3. About Ohrmazd's disclosing the
religion first among mankind to Yim [Jamshed]; its non-acceptance by Yim [Jamshed] owing to
attachment (asrunoih) to the religion of the ancients; and the acceptance of other things to
develop, extend, and improve the world thereby. 4. About the reason of the needfulness of
making the enclosure that Yim [Jamshed] made (var-i Yim kard), the command and instruction
by Ohrmazd to Yim [Jamshed], the making by Yim [Jamshed] just as Ohrmazd commanded and
instructed, and whatever is on the same subject.” (Nask 19: Vendidad [Jud-dew-dad] (legal)
(44)).

The Nask makes it clear for us that even before Ahurmazda religion was introduced to Yim (Sk.
Yama), religion of the ancients did co-exist.

If we look at the Avestan mythology, we find that Gaya Maretan was the first mortal person who
became disciple of Ahur Mazda. (Farvardin Yasht, 13.87) He was succeeded by Hushang,
Tahmuras and then by Yim. Later, it appears, Yim abandoned Mazda Yasni religion and became
a sinner. (Gatha 32.8) This implies that various faiths such as of Daevas and phallic worshipers
did exist simultaneously in Iran and neighboring regions in those times and their followers
fought with each other for religious supremacy.

It is evident from the Gathas that when Zoroaster was born, the Mazdayasni religion had already
declined and he reformed it. Thus, finding provenance of any religion is almost impossible.
Different faiths do emerge in various societies seeking followers but they do decline with the
abandonment of faiths by the people on own accord or by force, depending on the socio- political
environment. Cultural convergence and divergences is a constant process that continues in every
region and society.

This means that the Iranians were never on the move but had settled in respective regions
following different faiths and fought with each other for religious and political supremacy from
ancient times. Some faiths survived, some did not, but the process seems to have continued over
a longer period when Zoroaster became the reformer of a declined religion.

Some of the territories mentioned in Avesta have been identified as those situated within and
border regions of Iran. Skajervo concludes from internal evidence that they were composed in
north-eastern Iran and travelled from there to the south and southwest. 15

However, even if considered that the Avesta gradually shaped up in different regions, it does not
indicate the movement of the people. It merely shows how the tradition of compositions was
taken up by the followers of the religion of different regions in course of the time depending on
the royal patronages they received. Most of the religions have evolved and spread in this manner.
Except for Airyanam Vaejo, its neighbouring regions like Sukhdho, Mouru, Bakhdhim are
identified with Sogdhd (north-western Tajikistan, Samarkand), Merv & Murghab (Turkmenistan)
and Balkh (North Afghanistan) respectively. Being the Prophet’s birth place, if the land was
glorified to the extent of its being first region created by the Lord, we should consider it to be the
faithful poetic imagination instead of taking the climatic indications mentioned in the glory of
the land as the factual truth.

The King of Balkh (North Afghanistan), Vishtasp, was the first disciple of Zoroaster. (Farvardin
Yasht 25.99) The legend goes that Zoroaster was killed by a Turanian in Balkh. Turia, which is
enumerated as adjacent to the land of Airyanam Vaejo, is identified with Turan. In all,
probabilities the Turvasas of Rig Veda could have been Turanians of the Avesta, coming from
‘far afar’ to assist them in the wars! Farvardin Yasht (9.38) mentions several wars with
Turanians.

Hence, in all probabilities, although Zoroaster must be roaming in nearby regions to spread his
message in his lifetime, gathering disciples and patrons, he seems to have been associated more
with Balkh for a long period in his life. Airyanam Vaeja can be a place within or from
neighbouring regions of Balkh, but we cannot be so certain about which it was. Possibly, the
Aryanist scholars were fascinated with the word ‘Ariya’ and therefore, they debated it over very
seriously.

Considering that Zoroaster was the noblest of the noble man to the Iranians, it is no surprise that
his birthplace was extolled as ‘Ariyanam Vajea’ by his followers.
Out of 16, the 10th land or regions enumerated by Zoroaster is Harahvaiti, (VENDIDAD:
Fargard 1.12) which today is known after the Arabic corrupt form as Arghandab, a major
tributary to Haetumant (modern day Helmand and enumerated by Zoroaster as an 11th land
created by the Lord). Among the regions enumerated is Hapta Hindava (Fargard 1.18) which
normally all scholars have connected with Punjab, the basin of the Indus. However, let us not
forget here that ‘Sindhu’ was not always meant to be the name of river. Alternatively, the term
has also been used to denote the rivers.

Rather for Hapta Hindava, observes P. O. Skajervo, “The seven rivers may have denoted the
seven world-rivers, as suggested by an Avestan fragment in the Pahlavi commentary of Videvdad
1.19.” Skajervo emphatically states further, “…it is said in the Avesta : from dawn-side river to
the evening-side river, as well as a passage in the hymn of Mithra, where the two hindus ‘rivers’
and the Ranha denotes the farthest point of the earth:….” 17 If serious consideration is to be
given to this, the identity of Sapta Sindhu or Hapta Hindava cannot always be equated with Indus
region, i.e. Punjab, such as in this case.

The number seven seems to have acquired some kind of reverence for both the Avestan and Rig
Vedic people. This is evidenced from the repetitive use of the term like Saptarshi (Seven Seers),
Haft Keshvar (Seven Regions) etc. Hence, the identity of the Hapta Hindava or Saptasindhu
(seven rivers) remains ambiguous.

However, even if considered the identification with the region of seven rivers, i.e. Indus, this just
would indicate that the farthest region towards southeast of Afghanistan known to Zoroaster (or
Iranians) was Indus region. The Avesta does not mention any region beyond that of Indus, nor its
mighty tributaries by name. The Rig Vedic tribes, too, knew no land beyond Indus and its
tributaries at the time while the Rig Veda was being composed. The river they lavishly praised
was Saraswati, cognate of Harhvaiti of Vendidad, on whose bank the bulk of Rig Veda was
composed and numerous fire sacrifices were performed. The Rig Veda mentions few names of
the western tributaries of the Indus, unlike the Avesta, because they were closer to the Indus
Valley, if not in the Indus Valley itself! Hence, their knowing the names of the western
tributaries of the Indus is no surprise.

Rig Vedic geography does not mention regions of far west, beyond Parshu. (Persia or the region
of Parshu tribe, which seems dominant over the time than of Airyanam, i.e. Iran.) On the other
hand, the Avestan geography does not go beyond Hapta Hindava. It also does not mention
anywhere what it constituted of, which in a way clearly demarcates the northern geography of
Avesta and the southern geography of Rig Veda. This also settles the problem of respective
geographical positions of the people following a certain faith or mixture of the faiths, like the
Vedics where we find the mixture of the both Daeva and Ahura (Deva and Asura) cultures/faiths
in the form of Asur Varuna-Mitra and Indra (Daeva) worship, which contradicts the Avestan
faith. This is an interesting mixture of the faiths that we find in single scripture contributed by
 the seers hailing from different background and tribes. On the contrary, the Avesta throughout
follows the Asura (Ahura) faith, placing Daevas as demons in opposition with Ahur Mazda,
Indra being one of them. Similarly, it is possible that other tribes, too, followed some or other
faiths apart from Daeva and Asura like of Shisnadeva (phallic God). However, let us discuss first
on the other aspects related with the present issue under discussion.

While we can be certain enough to locate Avestan geography at north-east and some southern
part of the present day Afghanistan, the Rig Vedic geography needs to be precisely set. Let us
first see what the regions, tribes and rivers Rig Veda mentions to understand the geography of
Rig Veda. However, while doing so, one has to set aside the previous migration or any
geographical theories related to it for the time being to understand the real geographical scenario.

RIVER NAMES IN THE RIG VEDA

1. We find following rivers mentioned in the Rig Veda:

a. Rasa : ( RV I. 112.12., VIII.72.13., V.41.15; 53.9., IX.41.6, X.75.6; 108.1, 2; 121.4.) –

Frequesntly mentioned river after Saraswati and Sindhu, Rasa, finds its mention in the Avesta as
Ranha/Rangha. Ranha is the 16th land created by Ahur Mazda that constituted of the people
having no chiefs. (Fargard 1.19). The Rig Veda lauds her as, “Duly to each one hath my laud
been offered. Strong be Varutri with her powers to succour. May the great Mother Rasa here
befriend us, straight-handed, with the princes, striving forward.” (RV 5.41.15) and “Wherewith
ye made Rasa swell full with water-floods, and urged to victory the car without a horse; Where
with Trisoka drove forth his recovered cows,-Come hither unto us, O Asvins, with those aids.”
(RV 1.112.12.)

From order of the enumeration of the 16 lands created by Ahur Mazda, some scholars think
Ranha (Rasa) was close to Airyanam Vaejo, hence it could have been a river/land from western
side. The corrupt form of the Rangha was ‘Arang’ in later times. ‘Encyclopedia Iranica’
explains, Arang or alternatively used as Arvand – Rud, (Rud for river) renders Avestan Ranha,
which is cognate with the Scythian name Rhâ (Rahā) transmitted by Ptolemy and with Old Indic
Rasā. Arvand-rud was the name designated by the Persians in middle Persian texts to the river
Tigris. The previous identifications of Ranha with such as Oxus or Amu Darya have already
been discarded.

Hence, the scholars admit that it only could be the Tigris river from East Mesopotamia.
Fereshteh Davaran also equates the river with Arang, also known as Tigris. 18

The Rig Veda, at times, mentions Rasa together with Krumu (Kurram) and Kubha (Kabul) (RV
5.53.9). On this basis, some scholars think that it could be connected with Indus, or it could be
any mountainous river in the vicinity of Kabul and Kurram river.19 However, we cannot neglect
 the fact that the references to the Ranha in Avesta rather are of mythological forms. Witzel also
treats the river as mythical.

The Avesta describes the river as “….over the falls (River) Ranha, over the source of the (River)
Ranha, over the border of this earth, over the middle of this earth, over wherever of the earth.”
(Yasht 12) The description albeit sounds like mythical, but later text Bundahisn (21.1) describes
the Arang (Tigris) river almost in the same fashion and as it being location of the lofty deities
and abode of mythical Kar fish.

According to the Avesta, the Ranha denote the farthest point of the earth. It is quite likely that
the list in Videvdad 1 intended to cover the entire known world, including its mythical limits,
states P.O. Skjaervo. 20 Rig Vedic geography being in the close vicinity of the Avestans, it is no
wonder that the farthest but a mighty, not well known but from the information either flowed to
them from wanderers or was visited by some or other travellers from which Vedic society did
describe her in mystical awe.

Like Avesta, Rig Veda, too, describes the river as distant and mystic or mythical. “On every side,
O Soma, flow round us with thy protecting stream, As Rasa flows around the world.” (RV
9.41.6) and “WHAT wish of Sarama hath brought her hither? The path leads far away to distant
places. What charge hast thou for us? Where turns thy journey? How hast thou made thy way
o'er Rasa's Waters.” (10.108.1). The Rig Vedic descriptions are not dissimilar to the Avestan
descriptions of the river Ranha, suggesting it mighty but a distant and mythical river. In later
Indian mythologies, ‘Rasa’ came to be termed as the underworld, i.e. Rasatal. The above
deliberation confirms that the Vedic and Avestans are talking about the same river. It was distant
to their known horizon and yet had mystified them to make her mentions in their sacred texts.
This also confirms that the River Tigris is the Rasa/Ranha, which was a distant river to them.
b. Sarayu: (RV X.64.9, IV.30.18.,V.53.9): Sarayu river is identified with Avestan Horoiiyu
(alternately called as Harayu or Hari-rud). Hari-rud originates from the Baba mountain range,
part of the Hindukush mountain range. In western Afghanistan, it flows to the south of Herat.
The river especially mentioned in Rig Veda is in context with slaying of Arna and Chitraratha at
the hands of Indra on its bank. (RV IV.30.18).
c. Gomati: (RV X.75.6., VIII.24.30.): Rig Vedic Gomati is identified with the Gomal (Gumal)
river of the Afghanistan and Pakistan, originating at Ghazni to confluence with Indus near Dera
Ismail Khan.
d. Kubha: (RV V.53.9, X.75.6.): Kubha is identified with the Kabul river. It originates in the
Sangalakh range of the Hindu Kush Mountains in Afghanistan. This river, too, is a western
tributary of Indus river.
e. Krumu: (RV V.53.9, X.75.6): Krumu is identified with the Kurram river of Afghanistan that,
too, confluences with Indus.
f. Arjikiya: (RV VIII.7.29; 64.11, X.65.23): Originating in Afghanistan, Arjikiya has been
identified with river Haro which joins Indus in Pakistan. There have also been suggestions that
Arjikiya be identified with Arghastan of Afghanistan, 21
g. Suvastu: (RV VIII.19.37): Identified with the river Swat that originates from Hindu Kush
mountains to form a confluence with Kabul river. The Lower Swat Valley consists of many
archaeological sites.
h. YavyAvatI (RV VI.27.6): Witzel identifies this river with the Zhob river of the northern
Baluchistan, 22 whereas Talageri identifies this river with Hariyupia. Without going in to the
identification debate, a fact should be noted that Zhob river is a tributary of the Gomal river of
Afghanistan which is unanimously identified with Gomati river of the Rig Veda. The present
name Zhob of the river originates from the Zhob city situated on her banks or alternatively has
acquired the name from the Zab river of the Iraq. The name is Iranian in its origin and
etymologically identical to those of the Little Zab and Great Zab rivers in Iraq and the Pamirs.

The hymn in which Yavyavati is mentioned while enumerating the victories with aid of Indra
does not indicate its either being closer or farther. Abhyavartin Caymana mentioned in the same
hymn, destroying the enemy Varshikha, who belonged to Anu tribe as per some scholars. There
is no dispute over the fact that Caymana of Rig Veda indeed was an Iranian character. Looking
at the description mentioned above, the Zhob (Baluchistan) seems to be the most logical
identification of Yavyavati, and if not, then, it could be any river that cannot be identified as
other suggestions, too, are equally ambiguous.
i. Trstama: This river has been identified with the Gilgit river. This river originates from Hindu
Kush and confluences with Indus at the high altitude of about 10,000 feet.
j. Kusava: Though the identification of the Kusava is disputed, many scholars identify the
Kusava river with Kunar, which also is western tributary of the Indus, originating in
Afghanistan.

k. The Rig Vedic river names of the other tributaries of the Indus are identified as under:
Susoma - Sohan
GaurI – Panjikora
Vitasta – Jhelam
Asikni – Chenab
Parusni – Ravi
Vipas – Beas
Sutudri – Satlej

Let us note that the Rig Veda mentions Sutudri and Vipas as far away rivers, which the seer of
the hymn seems to have traversed by wagon. “List quickly, Sisters, to the bard who cometh to
you from far away with car and wagon. Bow lowly down; be easy to be traversed stay, Rivers,
with your floods below our axles”. (RV 3.33.9). The geographical fact remains that the Vipas and
Satlej rivers would be far away from the Helmand basin to reach, but certainly, not to the people
living in the vicinity of Ghaggar.

However, identification of Vitasta, Asikni and Parusni remains ambiguous. (See note ‘D’ to
chapter 2) The identification is mainly based on the Nadistuti hymns in which these rivers, too,
have been enumerated. Vipas becoming Beas or Sutudri becoming Satlej in course of the time is
but plausible but Vitasta to Jhelam or Asikni to Chenab or Parusni to Ravi name changes, no
matter how in corrupt forms, seems to be unlikely. Historically, the name Ravi has been derived
from the river name Iravati, but there is no supportive proof that the Iravati also was called as
Parusni in ancient times. Hence, the identification of these three Rig Vedic Rivers remains
undecided. Most likely, these rivers could be eastern minor tributaries of the Indus or the
tributaries of Helmand itself.

j. Sindhu: Sindhu is mentioned several times in the Rig Veda. Sindhu is generic word for the
river or riverines. Hence, at every place, Sindhu does not denote to the Sindhu river. However, in
Nadisukta, it appears that the Sindhu river has received more prominence over even Saraswati.
Rather, it has occupied prominent position. As we have seen above that the ‘Sapta Sindhava’
also can mean any group of seven rivers and that could be identified with any river system, not
necessarily with the river system of the Indus river. To be exact, the rivers in the Indus system
are far more than what the word Sapta Sindhava (seven rivers) indicates. However, instead of
entering into the debate over the identity of Sapta Sindhava, let us accept that the identification is
correct and it was but natural for Rig Vedic tribes to know them since it was the nearest largest
river from the place they were settled. Hence, knowing the river and its western tributaries comes
as no surprise.

k. Ganga and Yamuna: The name Ganga appears in the Rig Veda only twice, though Whitney
opines that only once the name is addressed undoubtedly to the Ganga river. 23 Talageri is
mistaken where he thinks the other name appearance is reference to Ganga rivber. The verse
(RV. 6.45.31) in question talks about the ‘Gangyaah’ (son of Ganga, not river), Bubu, from
whom the Rig Vedic seer had received gifts. The river Ganga is believed to have been mentioned
with her another name Jahnavi. ( I.116.19) However, Griffith translates the verse (1.116.19) as
follows: “Ye, bringing wealth with rule, and life with offspring, life rich in noble heroes; O
Nasatyas, accordant came with strength to Jahnu's children who offered you thrice every day
your portion.” Shrikant Talageri does not accept this translation, though there is no reason why
he should not. He harps that the Rig Vedic seers intend to name Ganga with its alternative name
in this verse and not as the ‘Janhus children’.24 However, there is no dispute that the river Ganga
could have been mentioned in the Rig Veda as the farthermost known river like far west river
Rasa (Tigris).

Nadistuti hymn mentions Yamuna along with Ganga. Yamuna finds its mention in three verses.
(RV V.52.17, VII.18.19, X.75.5). Most of the migrationist scholars tend to believe that the verses
mentioning Ganga and Yamuna were compositions by the invading Vedic Aryans later on when
they had almost settled in the Gangetic basin. Yamuna name derives from Yama (AV Yim), a
celebrated deity from Rig Veda as well Avesta. The one important mention of Yamuna in Rig
Veda is that Sudasa defeated Bheda on her banks immediately after his victory in battle of the
ten kings. However, Griffith translates this verse 7.18 19 as: “Yamuna and the Trtsus aided
Indra. There he stripped Bheda bare of all his treasures. The Ajas and the Sigrus and the Yaksus
brought in to him as tribute heads of horses.” The original Sanskrit verse is –

“āvadindraṃ yamunā tṛtsavaśca prātra bhedaṃ sarvatātāmuṣāyat |

ajāsaśca śighravo yakṣavaśca baliṃ śīrṣāṇi jabhruraśvyāni ||” RV 7.18.19.

Though the translation is correct, it does not indicate Yamuna here being the river. Rather in the
same book, hymn 7.33.3 in which the same incident of Bheda’s defeat is described which reads
as-
“even nu kaṃ sindhumebhistatāreven nu kaṃ bhedamebhirjaghāna |
even nu kaṃ dāśarājñe sudāsaṃ prāvadindro brahmaṇā vo vasiṣṭhāḥ || |”

In this verse, the word Sindhu is used instead of Yamuna. Griffith translates here Sindhu as
“river”, being it synonym for rivers as well. Again, in verse 7.83.4, the same episode is
memorised but no mention of any river appears in it. In verse 5.52.17 (The mighty ones, the
seven times seven, have singly given me hundred gifts. / I have obtained on Yamuna famed
wealth in kine and wealth in steeds.) Yamuna is mentioned but is equally ambiguous and in all
probabilities could not possibly be Yamuna of India. Here we find interesting juncture where
there are three verses about the war. In one of them, ‘Yamuna’ is mentioned but not her banks or
flow indicating its being river. In the second, the word Sindhu appears instead of Yamuna along
with reference to her banks, but it is not clear whether it is the Sindhu river or just any river. In
the third, no river is mentioned. In another verse, the word Yamuna appears but its geography is
not clear. Nor it is clear that whether it is addressed to any river or not.

So the question arises on whose banks Sudasa conquered Bheda? It creates serious anomaly in
absence of definitive proof that the Yamuna mentioned in the verse 7.18.19 is intended as the
present Yamuna river or just as name of some ambiguous female deity? Whether Sindhu
mentioned in the verse 7.33.3 is just for the river or does it clearly intends to indicate the Sindhu
river? Even if the Parusni is equated with Ravi, the distance between Ravi and Yamuna does not
allow for war maneuver because it is not less than 300 to 400 miles full of mountainous terrains!
Therefore, in all probability, the Sudasas victory over Bheda, unless this was a mythological war,
did not take place at the present river Yamuna. It could have been any river of same name or the
Sindhu river itself!

There is no dispute amongst scholars that the Nadisukta is (Tenth Mandala) a work of later times
whereas the seventh Mandala is considered being among oldest. The mention of Ganga and
Yamuna together in the verse 10.75.5 only can be said with some certainty that it was the river
names those flowed through India, which ealier might just have been known as the farthest rivers
from their location. The mention in Nadisukta hymn, since it is considered to be a late
composition when the late Vedic tradition had travelled to India.

However, it be noted here that the word ‘Ganga’, like Sindhu, also is a generic word for the river.
In Indo-Chinese languages, too, similar words like Khang, Kijang or Jong are used for the rivers.
The word Ganga could possibly have been derived from Austric and thus have no Vedic Sanskrit
origin.25 Hence, we can assume that the Vedics did not name the Ganga but the name pre-existed
when the Vedic tradition had travelled to India. The following map will show the respective
geographical positions of the tributaries of the Indus river.

Saraswati: As we have seen in the previous chapters that the Ghaggar cannot be the Rig Vedic
river on any account, we have no alternative but to accept the Harahvaiti (Sk. Saraswati, now
known as Aranghab), a major tributary to the river Helmand (Avestan name Haetumant, Sk.
Setumant) as the Rig Vedic Sarasvati. Besides, the fact to be noted is that the most of the rivers
mentioned in Rig Veda are of Afghan origin. Helmand, too, would have carried the same name
as Harhvaiti along with Haetumant, which means ‘dammed’. The meaning of Saraswati is ‘full
of ponds’.

Rajesh Kochhar supports our deliberation. He states that, “There is an uncanny similarity
between the Rigvedic description of Saraswati and Avestan description of Helmand. Rigveda
(Rv 6.61.8) talks of Saraswati 'whose limitless unbroken flood, swift moving with a rapid rush,
comes onward with tempestuous roar', while Yasht (10.67) refers to 'the bountiful, glorious
Hetumant swelling its white waves rolling down its copious floods'. This suggests that the same
river is meant in both the cases. If we identify naditama Saraswati with the Helmand, we can
consistently account for all its attributes.” 26 C
We have seen all important rivers mentioned in the Rig Veda. With this, we get the clue that all
rivers, except Ganga-Yamuna and Rasa which are farthermost known regions/rivers to the Vedic
people, all other rivers are within the close vicinity of Aranghab or Helmand river. For example,
Rangha alias Tigris is located towards farther west of Afghanistan i.e. Mesopotamia. Ganga-
Yamuna are the probable farthest eastern rivers known to the Vedics, but not to the Avestans.
This was because settlements of the Avestans were towards the north of the Afghanistan whereas
the Vedics were settled towards south Afghanistan. Under such circumstances, is the knowledge
of these rivers not a surprise!

Frequently referred rivers of Rig Veda are not Ganga, Yamuna, or even the eastern tributaries of
the Indus, but the Afghan origin rivers and western tributaries to the Indus. We will further see
that the most of the events recorded by Rig Veda also took place on the western side of the
Indus. This clearly indicates that the location of Vedics being closer to them and that the Vedics
were settled close by the river Helmand that is central part of western and eastern rivers
frequently mentioned in the Rig Veda. Many unidentifiable names of the rivers could be related
to the tributaries of Helmand.

TRIBES IN THE RIG VEDA

About 48 tribes or groups of the people have been mentioned in the Rig Veda in different
contexts. Many of the tribes are identified with their respective locations whereas some yet
remain unidentified as there seems no geographical continuity of those tribes because of their
possible assimilation with the other tribes living in the close vicinity or their losing political or
monarchal identity in course of the time.

The Yadus, TurvaSas, Anus, Druhyus and Purus are the main tribes frequently mentioned in the
Rig Veda. It is a general understanding that The Rig Vedic composition underwent under the
hypothetical Puru patronage, or to be precise Puru’s branch Bharata clan (sub-branch Tritsu).
Yadus and Turvasas are always mentioned together but they seem to be located at far distance
from the Rig Vedic tribe, Rig Veda evidenced it thus…they were coming from far afar (RV
I.36.18; VI.45.1) and from the further bank (RV V.31.8). However, though both tribes were
located far afar, Rig Veda does not clearly mentions that both the tribes lived together in close
vicinity, but mentioning them together implies their close geaographical proximity. Though both
the tribes have been mostly friendly with the Rig Vedic tribe, it does not indicate that the cordial
alliance remained always the same. There are references in the Rig Veda that sometimes, they
too, had turned foes which is apparent from verse VI.27.7; VII.18.6 and 19.8; IX.61.2. Hence,
the federation of the five tribes, which is often referred as ‘Panchajana’, means that it was not
case all the time. Rig Veda, though mentions ‘panchajana’ frequently, does not explicitly name
the tribes. Hence, the identity of these panchajana tribes remains ambiguous.

However, as far as the identity of the both is concerned, Talageri suggests that both, Yadu and
Turvasa, were certainly not the Vedic Aryans. 27 Then who were they? Were the Yadus of Rig
Veda same tribe mentioned in the Mahabharata? Had it been the case there was no reason to call
them Non-Vedic Aryans as they were sons of Yayati. However, Yadu and Turvasas of Rig Veda
certainly are distinct tribes but located afar from the Vedic tribe.
Turvasas sometimes are mentioned as ‘Turva’ in Rig Veda (10.62.10). In later Indian tradition,
the Turvasus seems to have been disappeared except their passing mention in Satapatha
Brahmina. 28 Though, there is no certain identification of the tribe by either theorists, it seems
that the Turvasas were none other than Turanians of Avesta, a historical tribe living in the region
of Turan, which was always hostile to the Avestans. “The Yasht (13.143 & 144) lists the names
of individuals who were the first "hearers and teachers" of Zarathushtra's teachings. …….The
five nations mentioned are Airyana Vaeja (called Airyanam Dakhyunam in the Yasht) as well as
four neighbouring lands. These four lands neighbouring Airyana Vaeja are Tuirya, Sairima, Saini
and Dahi.” 29 From Yasht, it is clear that the Tuirya people were an ancient tribe that delved in
the Turan region.

The word Turvayana occurs four times in Rig Veda as the name of the person to whom Indra
helped to win against some enemy tribes. Griffith refers to Sayana and concludes that it could be
the epithet of Divodasa. Likewise, some scholars think that Turanians, mentioned as Tuiryas in
Avesta and may be that the Tuirya word was derived from the word Aierya in its contrast for
their enmity.

However, we find from the Rig Veda that the Turvasas (Turva-Turvayana), although hostile with
Iranians, were mostly on friendly terms with Vedic people. Indra’s help to them winning the
some wars indicate Vedic peoples could have participated in some wars that the Turvasas fought.
Max Muller asserts, “Turvasa and his descendents, who represent the Turanians, are described in
the later epic poems of India as cursed and deprived of their inheritance in India.” It is but
natural after the battle of ten kings, Turanians (Turvasas) would have become despised people to
the Vedic folks. 30

Turvasas also can be explained as ‘Tur+Vasa”, residents of ‘Tur’ region. The name ‘Turk’ also is
derived from ‘Tur’, same like the term ‘Turan’ or ‘Tuirya’ of Avesta, making it clear that the
Turvasas of the Rig Veda and Turanians of Avestan texts are one and the same people. Turan
was land of the modern Turks. 31

To the people settled in Helmand region, Turanians alias Turvasas, positioned in Turan, would
be the people coming from far afar looking at the geographical distance. Macdonell agrees that
the Turvasas advanced from West to participate in the battle of ten kings, 32 which does mean
that their location was certainly towards west of the river Parusni, where the battle took place.
Avesta mentions Tuirya (Turan) being the neighbouring land of Airyana Vaeja and with whom
he was hostile, implies that the Turvasus of Rig Veda, with whom they were mostly on friendly
terms, in all probability were none but Turanians.

As far the Yadus, although mostly have been equated with Yadus of Mathura, it seems unlikely
that they were inhibited there, though they too are said to be coming ‘from far afar’ like Turvasas
and with them. Macdonnel states in this regard that, “the Turvasas and Yadus were two distinct
though closely allied tribes.” 33 However, if Turvasas were coming from Turan, Yadus, too, must
have been settled about them and not to the far opposite side like Mathura. We get an indicative
proof from Rig Veda as followes:
“A hundred thousand have I gained from Parsu, from Tirindira,

And presents of the Yadavas.” (RV 8.6.46, Trans. Griffith)

Parsus are identified with Persians. In this verse, it shows that the Yadus were close to Persians
too! Looking at association of Turvasas and Yadus and in above verse, the composer praising
Parsus and Yadavas in same breath for the donations received from them, it would seem that the
Yadus of Rig Veda were settled somewhere between Turan and the habitat of Persian tribes.

Puru Tribe

King Sudasa ousted an important tribe, the Puru, in the battle of Ten kings with the help of his
chief priest Vashishtha. Sudasa is said to be belonging to the Bharata clan, a sub-tribe or the part
of Puru tribe. There are many seers in the Rig Veda those are named after Puru, such as
Purumeelha Angirasa, Puru Atreya, Puruhanma etc. However, it is clear that the Rig Vedic
people (at the least during Sudasa clan’s reign) did not directly belong to the hypothetical Puru
tribe. Rather, Puru seems to be a common name used for personal as well as for cities, towns and
forts. Indra’s main epithet is ‘Purabhidya’, ‘Purandara’ that means destroyer of the cities and the
forts.

We find the same tradition is Avesta as well. Zoroaster’s father’s name was Pourushaspa.
‘Pouru’ was a prefix of the many Avestan personal names, such as Pouru-Bangha, Pouruchista,
Pouru-Dhakshiti, Pouru-Jira, Pouru-Dhakhsti, and so many others. There can be possible
connection between Puru of the Rig Veda and Pouru of Avesta.

Vedic Puru and Pouru of Avesta are the same, which means ‘Plenty’, ‘Many’ or ‘More’. Or “first
man”. Sometimes, it also stands for ‘ancient’ and ‘predecessors’. The word Puratan, Purva for
ancient could have been derived from ‘Puru’. According to Saul Levin, the word ‘Puru’ is of the
basic vocabulary, is archaic, and is parallel with ‘Pouru’ of Avesta. 34 No wonder, the same word
came to be used as ‘Purush’ for man and ‘Purandhri’ for female while becoming cognate for
cities or towns where both genders lived together to whom the term ‘Poura’ was applied.

Whether Puru was a tribal name, or just an archaic epithet, or vocative case used for the men
may be a question here. MacDonell asserts, “In several passages of the Rigveda, the Purus as a
people seem to be meant.” 35 He further adds that from Rig Veda we note sudden disappearance
of the Purus. However, certainly, from Rig Veda, it appears that the name was variably used as a
tribal name, epithet and prefix of the personal names. Given due consideration to this, Puru from
the lineage of Mahabharata cannot be equated with either the Puru of Rig Veda or Pouru of
Avesta. Surprisingly, Satapatha Brahmana explains Purus as Raksasas and Asuras. It only is in
Mahabharata, Puru revives as a name of the son of Yayati and Sharmishtha. 36

In Rig Veda, though, Puru, as a tribe, is allied with Rig Vedic tribe sometimes but were chief
adversaries during the battle of ten kings in which they were vanquished by Sudasa. Purus (if at
all it was a tribe’s name) seems to be in the close vicinity of the Sudasa’s region. Traditionally, it
is thought that the Puru tribe was later branched in many tribes, such as Bharat, Tritsu, Kushik
etc, is not justifiable for Sudasa of the Tritsu clan cannot belong to Bharata or Puru tribe, because
in all probabilities they were generic words, not tribal identities.

Pakhta are identified with the Pakhtun tribe that still delves at Pakhtunistan and Bhalanas at
Baluchistan or nearer to the Bolan Pass. Pakhtas find mention in the history of Herodotus as
‘Pactiyans’ informing us that they were located on the eastern frontier of Achaemenid Arachosia
Satrapy from as early as 1st millennium BCE. 37 The present location of the Pakhtuns and
Balochis, too, is as same as it was in the Rig Vedic times showing no displacement or migration
for any reason. This also would indicate that there could not have been any reason for Vedic
people to migrate in any direction too.

The Shivas in all probability were the people living in the vicinity of the Indus, along western
tributaries. While name of the tribe appearing clearly as ‘Shiva’ in the Rig Veda, hardly any
attempt has been made by any scholar to relate with the IGVC where abundant proof has been
found of Shiva worship. Rather, we find utter silence on the identification of this tribe or group
of people when the scholars have taken so much of efforts to identify miscellaneous tribes. The
Visanin tribe, though not identified so far, but since the term means ‘person wearing horned
headdress’, Tarkateertha Laxmanshastri Joshi identifies them with the people of IGVC where the
deity images of horned headdresses are found. 38

Alina is other tribe to which Talageri wants to identify with Hellenes when renowned scholars
identify it with the people of Nuristan, a province of Afghanistan or north-east of Kafiristan
based on the accounts of the Chinese pilgrim Xuanzang of seventh century AD. 39 This tribe was
also amongst ten tribes those had assembled against Sudasa in the battle of ten kings. The tribe
finds mention only once in Rig Veda 7.18.7. It is pertinent to note here that the Kafirs were
following ancient Hindu paganism till they were vanquished by Abdur Rahman in 19th century.40

There is no ambiguity over the identification that the Parthavas are Parthians whereas Parsu were
the Persians. Though, the identity of Druhyus is disputed, there is almost an agreement that they
belonged to Gandhar region. Gandhari (And as Gandharvas) tribe, too, is mentioned in the Rig
Veda. However, its geography is not mentioned. The Gandhari tribe must have been settled in
Gandhara region of present Kandahar, as Sanskrit G changes to K in Gandhari language, along
with the Druhyus who later either merged with Gandhara people or lost prominence and their
identity in the course of time. Druhyus also were one among the ten tribes that had assembled
against Sudasa in the battle of ten kings, whereas the Gandhari tribe seems to be neutral.

Historically, the Gandhar kingdom was located in the Swat (RV Suvastu) and Kabul (RV Kubha)
river valleys. The capital was Purushpur (modern Peshavar), derived from the word ‘Puru’, it
seems this city’s name must have travelled to us from the oldest Vedic and Avestan tradition.

The Bharata tribe, too, is another enigma. Though it has been attempted to relate this tribe with
Sudasas (Tritsus) and Purus, the name Bharata does not appear in the Rig Veda as a name of any
particular tribe whose existence can be shown independently. Bharata is mentioned in the Rig
Veda in about 15 verses, but in at least four verses, the name Bharata appears as a synonym of
Agni , at one place of Maruts and at some times of gods. At some places, the Bharatas are
mentioned as insignificant, such as in RV 7.33.6. However, from Rig Veda, it seems that the
term ‘Bharata’mostly is a generic term, like Puru, not specifically the name of any tribe. The seer
Vishwamitra is said to be among sons of Bharata, the third Mandala of Rig Veda attributed to
Vishwamitra and hence, it often is called Bharata book. The geography of Bharatas, as per Rig
Veda, was on Saraswati, Apaya and Drasadvati. (RV 3.23.4) Devasravas and and Devavata are
mentioned in this hymn as Bharata chieftains, which may indicate that there could have been
multiple trines those identified themselves as Bharatas.

The word Bharata is derived from root ‘bhru’, which means to provide for, to be maintained,
cherished or one who protects. From this root ‘Bhrata’ (Brother), Bhartru, and so the Bharata
words have been evolved, all mean the same.41 Hence, in this respect, like Arya, Bharata could
have been the epithet to be addressed for friendly tribes including self, claiming as descendants
of some mythical Bharata. The name ‘Bharata’ for the country thus seems to have been derived
from root ‘Bhru’ to mean the land that provides is more logical than to relate it with the
mythological kings of that name.

Anus, mostly mentioned together with the Druhyus is another tribe mentioned in the Rig Veda,
especially, as enemies who participated in the battle of ten kings against Sudasa. Talageri wants
to identify Anus with Iranians. The identification is based on his assumption that the Bhrigus
were their priests and since Bhrigus are meant to be Atharvans of Avesta, the Anus must be the
Avestan Iranians. 42 The identification is incorrect as Athravans of Avesta have nothing to do
with the Atharvans of the Rig Veda or Atharvaveda, which we will see in detail in the next
chapter. However, Rig Veda evidences that the Kavi Cayamana, Anu King, a participant in the
battle of ten kings, was of Parthian origin. (RV 7.18.8) Abhyavartin Cayamana, although not
certain whether descendent of Kavi Cayamana or ancestor, also is mentioned in Rig Veda
(6.27.8) as “Parthavanam” (Parthian) in friendly manner. The original verse goes like this;

“dvayÁM  agne  rathíno  viMshatíM  gÁ  vadhÚmato  maghávA  máhyaM 

samrÁT 

abhyAvartÍ  cAyamAnó  dadAti  dUNÁsheyáM  dákSiNA  pArthavÁnAm” 

[RV 6.27.8]

The verse clearly indicates the Parthian origin of the Anu tribe that delved in the norther part of
the ancient Iran. They certainly not were Iranians themselves as Iran was never the name of the
tribe but region.

Druhyus (and in all probabilities the Anus, too,) are always, even in later Indian tradition, are
associated with the North-West, i.e. Gandhar or beyond. Anu could be the personal name of the
King of the Druhyus as suggested by Edward Washburn Hopkins. In the same way he suggests
as well that, the Turvasa could be the name of Chieftain of the Yadus.43 However, this does not
appear to be the case. The identification of the Druhyus with Druids has also been not accepted
by the scholars.

However, Rig Veda clearly indicates Parthian origin of the Anu tribe. Parthia, in Avesta
mentioned as ‘Parthava’, was located towards north-western Iran, bordered by the Karakuram
desert. Anu Tribe in all probabilities was settled in this region. Since Anus and Druhyus are
mentioned always together, it does not mean that they were the same but were distinct tribes who
were settled along traversable distance from the Rig Vedic tribes.
The Gandhari tribe also is frequently mentioned in Rig Veda (also as Gandharva sometimes) is
related with Gandhara region. The region must have acquired the name after this tribe because it
could have been become powerful and had expanded its horizons in later times. Also, boundaries
of the Gandhara of those times are not certain. It could have been name of the entire Helmand
Valley, thus accommodating various tribes in that region, as we have discussed earlier in this
chapter.

Panis

Another tribe or the name of the people mentioned in the Rig Veda is of Panis. The references to
the Panis are quite hostile. Still, we find in the Rig Veda that Vedic people were happy to accept
gifts from the Panis in later times. (RV 6.45.31-32) Though it has been attempted to identify
Panis with expert traders Phoenicians or Parni tribe, recorded by Strabo as living in east Iranian
region.44 However the Panis could be the name of the people who lived in IGVC. Panis, as
mentioned in the Rig Veda, were expert merchants and farmers producing massive food grains
and used to store surplus produce. (RV 1.130.1, 2.31.3, 3.2.7) They were immensely rich, both
the male and female used to wear variety of golden ornaments. (RV 1.44.1) The hatred for their
richness and trade appears so many times in Rig Veda, such as in RV. 6.51.14, 6.53.5. Rig Veda
describes them as opponents of sacrifices, without faith on Yajnyas, of nasal or rude speech,
Godless and deceitful. (RV 7.6.3) 45 However, though, the Rig Vedic seers harboured a grudge
against Panis, there is no instance of war between them.

Panis mean traders (Vani) in later Indian tradition, too, as Yaska has defined in Nirukta. Sayana,
too, confirms this etymology. 46 In a way, Rig Vedic description can be related to the mercantile
community of the IGVC.

It should not come as a surprise as the Panis were traders and as the profession demanded, they
must have been travelling with their merchandise across the regions crossing the settlements of
Vedic tribes. The few finds of IGVC seals and ivory in BMAC sites confirms the IGVC trade
with BMAC.47 On the decline of Sudasa’s Tritsu Clan, later Rig Vedic seers had to accept gifts
from the Panis, which is evident from the RV 6.45. 31-32, where the Rig Vedic seer is praising a
Pani named Bubu for his graciousness.

Tritsu, a tribe that prospered under Sudasa and it seems most of the Rig Veda shaped up in this
tribe’s patronage, lived on the banks of the Sarasvati River, i.e. Helmand. Although there is no
certainty in the identifications, about ten kings of his dynasty find mention in various contexts.
Talageri designates them the Puru lineage, which seems to be improbable for all the listed
kings.48 The scholars have attempted to connect Sudasa with the Bharatas who are said to be a
branch of the Purus, as we have seen above, it does not seem to be the case.

Earlier, we have seen that the Puru and Bharata was mostly a generic term or epithet, addressing
Sudasa or his predecessors with these alternate epithets does not make Sudasa a part of the tribe.
Rather in Indian ancient tradition, the name Puru and Bharata are clearly personal names,
unrelated to any tribe. Like others, in the hymn 7.18 Sudasa’s, the ‘Tritsu’ clan has been
mentioned in the episode of battle of ten kings, showing its independent identity.
It appears from the Rig Vedic accounts that the Tritsus were very powerful for some time in the
Rig Vedic era, under which most of the Vedic tradition, too, shaped up. However, the tribe
seems to have lost its prominence and independent political existence later. Hence, there is no
mention of this tribe in the later tradition. The Rig Vedic tradition, too, in all probability was
taken up by other tribal kings which seems obvious from the Danastutis. (Donor praises).

The Battle of Ten Kings

After the mythical war of Indra with Vrutra, the most celebrated war that appears in Rig Veda is
battle of ten kings, which was fought on the banks of the river Parusni. Hypothetically, it is
considered that his camp was on the eastern side of the Parusni whereas his enemies, such as
Shivas, Anu, Drahyu, Parshu, Pakht, Bhalanas, Puru etc., had gathered towards the western side
of the river.

Parshus are identified with Persian people whereas Pakhtas are identified with present Pakhtun
tribe. Shivas may be the people from the IGVC. Bhalanas are identified with the people living in
Bolan Pass region or Baluchistan. Anu tribe is identified with Parthians. Except a few
unidentified tribes, it clearly seems that the rest of the tribes inhabited the present day
Afghanistan, Iran and its bordering regions. If we have a look at the geographical location of the
Parusni (thought to be present Ravi), to wage a war with King Sudasa, the enemy tribes would
have to travel for longer distances, about 500 miles, even had to cross the vastness of Sindhu
river to reach the banks of the Parusni. In addition, even if considered that the Tritsus were
settled by Parusni, present Ravi, it is quite unlikely that Sudasa could have initiated such a
serious enmity amongst the far away tribes those could have dared to travel such a vast distance
to wage a devastating war against Sudasa. This makes identification of Parusni with Ravi
improbable for the geography does not fit the overall scenario.

First, let us turn to the possible cause of the war. It is assumed by the scholars that the rivalry
between seer Vishwamitra and Vasishtha was the major cause behind this war. It is believed that
Sudasa removed Vishwamitra from the post of chief priest. Hence, an anguished Vishwamitra
left Sudasa to gather forces against him. However, to our surprise, we do not find any support to
this assumption in Rig Veda as there is no mention of such event taking place.49 In all
probabilities, the war was fought over religious issues as Rig Veda describes enemy as ‘ayajju’,
non-sacrificers or over the political supremacy issue.

For waging war against a far away enemy, travelling from Persia, Parthia, Nooristan,
Pakhtunistan, Balochistan etc., crossing the expanse of Indus and other rivers such as Jhelum,
Chenab in itself is a wild thinking. In the first place, how Vishwamitra could gather forces,
located in different and distant regions? If at all, he did so as some scholars tend to think, did he
do that just to avenge his previous patron only because he had been fired? This is an unsupported
assertion of the scholars that Vishwamitra was in any way responsible for the battle, as the Rig
Veda does not speak of any such event.

Considering that even if battle was related with religious hegemonic conflicts, how would such
conflicts usurp with a tribe that is located at the distance of more than 500 miles? There cannot
be any political reason as well to have any rhyme or reason to make enmity with a distant tribal
king. This fact alone confirms that the present Ravi was not Parusni on whose bank the
devastating war took place. D

After the defeat of enemies, what is the scenario? Defeated tribes were not annihilated.
According to Rig Veda, the number of people who died in the war is 6,666. Though the figure
could be speculative or exaggerated, the survivors of the war must have travelled back to their
homeland after paying huge tributes.

The Rig Veda (7.33) mentions that Tritsus under Sudasa received tribute from defeated kings
like Ajas, Sigrus and Yaksus. RV 7.18.13 informs us that Indra destroyed the seven fortifications
of the enemy and gave treasures of Anu to Sudasa. This verse indicates that Anus after defeat
could travel back to their capital and Sudasa chased them from Parusni to the Anu settlements in
Parthia with an aide of Indra, destroyed their fortifications and recovered tributes from Anu’s
sons. This again would be a wild guess made only to support the superficial theories! For coming
to the war and chasing the defeated enemy up to his capital, one needs to be in traversable
vicinity of the enemy. Hence, Parusni cannot be equated with Ravi because pre and post war
scenario does not allow this to happen in all probabilities.

The migrationists have complicated this simple issue for their want of establishing migration of
the Aryans from either direction. “Out of India Theory” (AIT) supporters, such as Talageri,
boldly infer the westward expansion of the Vedic Aryans from the east after this war, whereas
the AIT or AMT (Aryan Invasion and Aryan Migration Theory) theorists from same incident
conclude the eastward expansion of the Indo-European tribes. Since the basis of both the theories
is wrong, they are using available proof conveniently without giving enough attention to the bare
facts that whatsoever was the reason of the war, on whose banks, the war took place, that Parusni
could not have been Ravi of Punjab!

Ravi name derives from the original river name Iravati. It is not at all derived from Parusni. We
do not know for certain which river was intended by Vedic people. However, due to lack of such
an identification, we are left with no choice but to accept the fact that the river in question,
Parusni, could have been any river that was located in the traversable distance of the enemy
location in the vicinity of Hemand river.

Religious or socio-economical or political conflicts take place normally with the people living in
neighbouring regions. Wars for political supremacy are not new. Since the locations of the other
tribes such as Parshu, Pakhta, Bhalanas, etc. are almost undisputed, it would be wise to assume
that the location of Tritsu tribe was, too, just about them. The upper side of the Helmand possibly
is the most likely identification of the location of Tritsu tribe. The Parusni river could be one of
the tributaries of Helmand or Aranghab on whose bank, the enemy could gather from different
directions to wage the war.

Victorious kings and people do not abandon their habitat. Nor did the defeated as we find from
the retaining the respective lands of the defeated tribes, like of Anus. Talageri’s suggestion that
after this victory, Sudasa moved westwards of Ravi becomes ridiculous on this account.
The essence of the war is the Tritsu tribe under Sudasa, after victory over all participant tribes,
must have been attained fame in the known world of those times. Rather, after the victory in this
and subsequent battles, Sudasa must have emerged as a hero of those times. The Rig Vedic
compositions and the fire sacrifices must have attained respect and attraction among the
neighbouring world to which he had patronised like his ancestors. The glory must have travelled
as a word of mouth to even the distant world to interest them in Sudas and his religion. Sudasa,
too, must have taken efforts to spread his religion, as most of the patrons or prophets do.

Zarathustra, too, spread his religion with the assistance of royal patronages. The Vedic religion
must have stood opposite to the Persian faith after the battle, as Parshu was another tribe to meet
with the defeat. This event could have blocked the Avestan spread to the south and south-east as
an opposing faith stood strong to prohibit such entry. Hence, it clearly seems from the annals of
the history that the Avestan faith spread westwards while Rig Vedic faith spread eastwards,
albeit after some lapse of the time.

The divergence of Vedic faith from Asur Varuna to Daeva Indra could have possible roots in the
transitional phase that Vedic tradition met with after this most celebrated war. In a way, the war
became a real landmark in the Vedic religious history that divided two faiths distinctly. Vedic
shift was from common Asura (Ahura) worship to Daeva (Deva) worship through the distinct
fire sacrificial practices.

Whitney, too, seems to be surprised from this sudden shift. He states that, “This most interesting
side of the ancient Indian religion exhibits itself in the Vedic hymns as already fading into
oblivion; the process of degradation of Varuna, its principal representative, which has later
striped him off his majestic attributes, and converted him into a mere god of ocean, is
commenced; Indra on the one hand, is rising to a position of greater prominence and honor
above him…..” 50

From Rig Vedic accounts, we understand that the clan of Sudasa, Tritsus, could not retain the
same glorious position afterwards and in course of the time, declined so much so that the new
contributors to Rig Veda were forced to accept patronage from the people for whom they had
nourished hatred in previous times. Tritsus were erased from the pages of the history, as we find
no references to them in later Vedic tradition that re-flourished in India.

To sum up, Tritsu tribe resided in the vicinity of Avestan Harahvaiti (Sk. Sarasvati) where most
of the Rig Veda was composed. After the decline of the Tritsu clan, new enthusiastic patrons and
disciples took up the Rig Vedic tradition, may be because of political reasons or because of its
disintegration. We will see in the next chapter how this process could have taken place. Before
that, we should see whether Avesta and Rig Veda were contemporary or not.

Bibliography

1. ‘Origins of a Civilization’, by Allchin Bridget and F. Raymond Allchin, Pub.: Viking, 1997,
p. 223.
2. ‘The AIT and scholarship’, by Nicholas Kazanas, July 2001 (Available online at
http://www.omilosmeleton.gr/pdf/en/indology/AITandscholarship.pdf)
3. ‘The Quest for the Origins of Vedic Culture: The Indo-Aryan Migration Debate’, by Edwin
Bryant, Oxford University Press, 2001, p. 156.
4. ‘The Indus Valley Tradition of Pakistan and Western India’, by Jonathan Mark Kenoyer,
Pub.: “Journal of World Prehistory, 5 (4), p. 331–85, 1991.
5. ‘Archeology & Language’, by C.C. Lamberg-Karlovsky in, “Indo Aryan Controversy:
Evidence and Inferences in Indian History”, edited by Edwin F Bryant any Laurie L Patton,
Pub.: Routledge, 2005, p. 155.
6. Ibid, p. 157-160.
7. ‘THE EMERGENCE OF INDO-IRANIANS: THE INDO IRANIAN LANGUAGES’, by J.
Harmatta, History of Civilizations of Central Asia (Vol. 1), edited by Ahmad Hasan Dani,
Vadim Mikhaĭlovich Masson, Pub.: UNESCO, p. 358. Available online at
https://en.unesco.org/silkroad/sites/silkroad/files/knowledge-bank-article/vol_I%20silk
%20road_the%20emergence%20of%20the%20indo%20iranians,%20the%20indo
%20iranian%20languages.pdf)
8. ‘Indocentrism’, by Michael Witzel in “The Indo-Aryan Controversy: Evidence and Inference
in Indian History”, edited by Edwin Bryant, Pub.” Routledge, 2004, p. 367.
9. ‘The Quest for the Origins of Vedic Culture: The Indo-Aryan Migration Debate’, by Edwin
Bryant, Pub.” Oxford University Press, 2001, p. 130-132.
10. ‘Rigveda & the Avesta: The Final Evidence’, by Shrikant Talageri, Pub.” Aditya Prakashan,
2008.
11. ‘The problem of the Aryans and Soma: Textual-linguistic and archeological evidence’, by
Asko Parpola, in ‘The Indo-Aryans of Ancient South Asia : Language, Material Culture and
Ethnicity’, edited by George Erdosy, Pub.: Walter de Gruyter, 1995, p. 371.
12. ‘Oriental Linguistic Studies - The Veda; The Avesta: The science of language’, by William
Dwight Whitney, Pub.: Scribner, Armstrong, And Company, 1874, p. 166.
13. ‘Avestan Geography’, by Gherardo Gnoli, originally published in 1997. (Available online at
http://www.iranicaon line.org/articles/avestan-geography)
14. ‘The Bundahishn (‘Creation’), or Knowledge from the Zand.’ Translated by EW West, from
‘Sacred Books of the East’, (Vol. 5), Pub.: Oxford University Press, 1897, See 20. 32, 32.3.
15. ‘The Quest for the Origins of Vedic Culture: The Indo-Aryan Migration Debate’, by Edwin
Bryant, Pub.: Oxford University Press, p. 132.
16. ‘Aryan Homeland, Airyana Vaeja’, by K. E. Eduljee, (Available online at
http://www.heritageinstitute.com/zoroastrianism/aryans/location.htm)
17. ‘The Videvdad : its Ritual, Mythical Significance’, by P.O. Skjaervo in ‘The Age of the
Parthians (The Idea of Iran)’, edited by Vesta Sarkhosh Curtis, Sarah Stewart, Pub.: I. B.
Tauris, 2010, p. 111.
18. ‘Continuity in Iranian Identity: Resilience of a Cultural Heritage’, by Fereshteh Davaran,
Pub.: Routledge NY, USA, 2010, p. 74.
19. ‘Avestan Geography’, by Gherardo Gnoli, originally published in 1997. (Available online at
http://www.iranicaon line.org/articles/avestan-geography)
20. ‘The Videvdad : its Ritual, Mythical Significance’ , by P.O. Skjaervo in ‘The Age of the
Parthians (The Idea of Iran)’, edited by Vesta Sarkhosh Curtis, Sarah Stewart, Pub.: I. B.
Tauris, 2010, p. 110-11.
21. ‘Identity and Chronology of the Rgvedic River Sarasvati’, Rajesh Kochhar, in ‘Archaeology
and Language III: Artefacts, Languages and Texts’ (Vol. 1), edited by Roger Blench,
Matthew Spriggs, Pub.: Routledge, 1999, p. 263
22. ‘Rigvedic history: poets, chieftains and politics’, by Michael Witzel in ‘Language, Material
Culture and Ethnicity. The Indo-Aryans of Ancient South Asia’, edited by George Erdosy,
Pub.: Walter de Gruyter, 1995.
23. ‘Oriental Linguistic Studies - The Veda: The Avesta: The science of language’, by William
Dwight Whitney, Pub.: Scribner, Armstrong, And Company, 1874, p. 24.
24. ‘Rigveda: A Historical Analysis’, by Shrikant Talageri, Pub.: Aditya Prakashan, 2000.
25. ‘Vaidik Sanskriticha Itihas’, Tarkateertha Lakshmanshastri Joshi, p. 30.
26. ‘Identity and Chronology of the Rigvedic River Sarasvati’, by Rajesh Kochhar, in
‘Archaeology and Language III: Artefacts, Languages and Texts’ (Vol. 1),  edited by Roger
Blench, Matthew Spriggs.
27. ‘Rigveda: A Historical Analysis’ by Shrikant Talageri, Pub.: Aditya Prakashan, 2000, see
chapter 5.
28. ‘Vedic Index of Names and Subjects (Vol. 1)’, by Arthur Anthony Macdonell, Arthur
Berriedale Keith, Pub.: Motilal Banarasidas Publishers Pvt. Ltd.,1995, p. 316.
29. ‘Aryan Homeland in Avesta’, by K. E. Eduljee, (Available online at
http://www.heritageinstitute.com/zoroastrianism/aryans/airyanavaeja.htm)
30. ‘Lectures on the Science of Languages’, by Friedrich Max Muller, Pub.: Longmans, Green,
And Company, 1861, p. 231.
31. E. J. Brill’s First Encyclopedia of Islam: 1913-1936’, vol. 8, edited by M.Th. Houtsma, T.W. Arnold,
R. Basset, R. Hartmann, A.J. Wensinck, H.A.R. Gibb, W. Heffening, and E. Lévi-Provençal ,
pub.: Brill-Leiden, p. 879-80.
32. . “Vedic Index of Names and Subjects”, Volume 1, by Arthur Anthony Macdonell and Arthur
Berriedale Keith, Pub. Motilal Banarasidas, 1995, page 315-16.
33. Ibid
34. Vedic Index of Names and Subjects”, Volume 2, by Arthur Anthony Macdonell and Arthur Berriedale
Keith, Pub. Motilal Banarasidas, 1995, page 12.
35. Ibid, p. 12-13.
36. ‘Semitic and Indo-European: Volume I: The Principal Etymologies With observations on
Afro-Asiatic’, by Saul Levin, Pub.: John Benjamins Publishing, 1995, p. 181.
37. ‘The History of Herodotus’, Chapter 7, Translated by George Rawlinson. (Available online
at http://www.piney.com/Heredotus7.html)
38. ‘Vaidik Sanskruticha Vikas’,by Tarkateertha Laxmanshastri Joshi, Pub.:
Pradnyapathashala Mandal, third edition 1996, p. 32.
39. ‘Vedic Index of Names and Subjects’ (Vol. 1), by Arthur Anthony Macdonell and Arthur
Berriedale Keith, Pub.: Motilal Banarasidas, 1995, p. 39.
40. ‘Conflict in Afghanistan: a historical encyclopedia’, by Frank Clements, Ludwig W. Adamec,
Pub.: ABC-CLIO, 2003, p. 139.
41. ‘Bharatiya Vivahsansthecha Itihas’, by Vi. Ka. Rajwade, new edition by Lokvadmay Griha,
p. 29.
42. ‘The Rigveda and the Avesta: the final evidence’, by Shrikant Talageri, Pub.: Aditya
Prakashan, 2008, p. 267.
43. ‘Problematic Passages in the Rig-Veda’, by Edward Washburn Hopkins in ‘Journal of the
American Oriental Society’ (Vol. 15), Pub.: American Oriental Society, 1893, p. 252-283.
44. ‘Vedic Index of Names and Subjects’, by Arthur Anthony Macdonell, Arthur Berriedale
Keith, reprint 1995, Pub.: Motilal Banarasidas Publishers Pvt. Ltd, p. 472.
45. ‘Bharatiya Sanskrutikosha’ (Vol. 5), edited by Pt. Mahadevshastri Joshi, third edition, Pub.:
Bharatiya Sanskruti Koshamandala, 1996, p. 362-64.
46. Ibid p.362.
47. ‘The Making of Bronze Age Eurasia’, by Philip L. Kohl, Pub.: Cambridge University Press,
2007, p. 186–7.
48. ‘Rigveda: A Historical Analysis’, by Shrikant Talageri, Pub.: Aditya Prakashan, 2000, see
chapter 5.
49. ‘Marathi Vishvakosha’ (Vol. 7), edited by Tarkateertha Laxmanshastri Joshi, Pub.:
Maharashtra Rajya Sahitya Sanskriti Mandal, 1977, p. 744-45.
50. ‘Oriental and Linguistic Studies: The Veda; The Avesta; The science of languages’, by
William Dwight Whitney, Pub.: Scriber, Armstrong & Co. 1873, p. 44.

Notes:

A. It appears that the eighteenth century European scholars wanted to disown every
possible link with Biblical tradition in regards with the influence of Semitic culture on
Europe and therefore they started finding their roots of the culture in more distant
oriental source. For them, India turned out to be more favourable candidate than
China for the so-called racial and linguistic affinities. However, by nineteenth century,
India went out of favour because of Max Muller’s invasion theory and many proposals
floating from European countries such as France, Germany etc. which claimed to be the
original ‘Aryans’. Apparently, the attempts to find out original homeland elsewhere
begun to avoid clashes within the Europe. However, as there is no consensus on
homeland issue yet, Vedic sympathiser Dr. Coenraad Elst took cue from the eighteenth
century proposal and published his book “Update on Aryan Invasion Debate” (1999,
Aditya Prakashan). The book was a new ray of hope for the saffron ideologists who
wanted to revive their claim. Ever since, the homeland quest has taken the political
turns and twists, causing almost a war to decide, “Who is superior?” An example of this
is the ‘Linguistic Aspects of the Indo-European Urheimat Question’, by Dr. Koenraad
Elst which is available online at
http://koenraadelst.bharatvani.org/articles/aid/urheimat.html.
B. Bactria-Marigiana Archeological Complex (BMAC) is a Bronze Age Civilisation,
located in present day North Afghanistan, Eastern Turkmenistan, Southern Uzbekistan
and Western Tajikistan. The civilization came into the light after 1970. However, it
mostly remained unknown till 1990 to the rest of the world because of the Soviet rule.
The region was occupied even before 6000 BC by the early farmers and the civilisation
had flourished sometime around late 3rd – early 2nd BC. Extensive archeological
 excavations conducted at this site in Altyn Depe (Turkmenistan) reflect the early to late
culture of the BMAC people. The excavations initially at Gonur and later at Togolok-21
and Togolok-1 resulted in unearthing the temples of fire. Archeologist V. Sarianidi
identified these fire temples with Zoroastrians. In the same rooms, which were
identified as Fire Temples, some seeds and stem impressions, which were identified with
Ephedra or Cannabis and connected with Haoma (Soma) sacrifices of Zoroastrians,
were also found. BMAC people lived in the brick-built fortified walled towns. The finds
of female figurines prompted some scholars to believe the BMAC people could have
been worshipping mother goddess. These people had a few horses, no chariots and did
not did not practice Kurgan or Andronovo burial practices. Instead, the BMAC
followed un-uniformed practices, such as cremation as well as burial. To know more
about BMAC, one may read, “THE INDO-IRANIAN PROBLEM IN THE LIGHT OF
THE LATEST EXCAVATIONS IN MARGIANA” by V. Sarianidi which can be
accessed online at file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/SanjayS/My
%20Documents/Downloads/43986-31341-1-PB.pdf.
C. Kochhar argues that bulk of the Rig Veda was composed on the banks of the Helmand.
He further suggests that the Ghaggar was already defunct when the Indo-Aryans
encountered it; and that many rivers to the east of Sutlej (Sarasvati, Yamuna, Ganga,
Gomati and Sarayu) were given the Rigvedic names for the sake of nostalgia. However,
though Kochhar is right in his assessment that the bulk of Rig Veda was composed on
the banks of the Helmand, his assessment that the Vedic Aryans migrated to India and
renamed the local rivers out of nostalgia is not correct. So much the Vedic people were
fond of the Saraswati River that they could not have renamed a seasonal and puny river
like Ghaggar after it. The myth of disappearance of the river at Vinasana cannot be
taken as a factual records. It can be considered only as a metaphor for losing the
company of a river much revered by the Rig Vedic seers. Though highly praised in Rig
Veda, in new geographies, it could not have been possible to show its independent
existence. Hence, the myth must have been created to explain its “disappearance.” In
addition, the myths of the Puranas and Brahmanas about the disappearance of the
Saraswati often contradict each other. Interestingly, the traditional belief is that the
Saraswati is an underground and thus invisible river which confluences with Ganga-
Yamuna at Prayag (Allahabad).
See- ‘Identity and Chronology of the Rgvedic River Sarasvati’, Rajesh Kochhar, in
‘Archaeology and Language III: Artefacts, Languages and Texts’, Volume 1, edited by
Roger Blench, Matthew Spriggs, Page 266 and ‘Bharatiya Sanskritikosha’, Volume 9,
edited by Pt. Mahadevshastri Joshi, 3rd edition, Published by Bharatiya Sanskruti
Koshamandal, 2000, Page 669-71.

D. Raj Pruthi states in this regards that “The Rig-veda represents the battle have been
fought on the banks of Parushni. This location of the conflict, however, seems to be most
difficult, if not quite impossible, if we consider the territories occupied by the different
members of the confederacy at the period, according to traditional history. The Durhyus
were occupying Gandhara at the time, and it is difficult to see how they could be interested
in or affected by the conflicts of people far away from them. The Turvasas, as already
stated, did not exist at that time and if they did exist, as suggested by Pargiter, it is difficult
to comprehend how they marched off over 500 miles from the Karusha country to
participate in the exploits of a remote king.” (‘Vedic Civilization’ by Raj Pruthi, Pub.
Discovery Publishing House, 2004, p. 85)

The information that above paragraph provides and the questions it poses, strengthens our
case that the identification of Parushni with Ravi is not correct. Rather, coming to Ravi
would be far distant for the Perians, Parthians, Turanians than that of other tribes. Hence
the Parushni must have been any river of southern or central Afghanistan.
 Chapter 5

Are Avesta and Rig Veda Contemporary?

In fact, what we have in hand to discuss overwhelmingly the IE linguistics is the scriptures of
Vedic and Avestic religions. We find close similarities, in ritualistic practices as well as the
language of both the religions. However, the dissimilarities on both the grounds, too, are not
negligible. The common understanding among migrationist scholars has been that the Indo-
Iranians were a major branch of the Indo-European language family. The two wave theory of
Burrow 1, which is supported by Parpola 2, suggests that the first wave of the Indo-Aryans
dispersed to Anatolia and India about 1500 BC and the later, by around 800 BC, the wave came
to be called as ‘Iranian wave’. Indian Vedicist scholars like Talageri has another suggestion.
According to him, Iranians (Anu tribe) and Vedic Aryans (Bharata/Puru tribe) migrated from
India towards Iran and that Avesta began to be composed after the time of middle Rig Vedic era.3
Hodivala postulates that both the scriptures are contemporary, dating back to 2,500 BC.4 J
Harmatta suggests that at the end of second phase, proto-Indians had left for the south-east. She
further states that “…On the basis of what has been said, it becomes clear that the migrations of
the Proto-Indo-Iranians may have taken place in at least three successive periods and that they
were of very different character.”5

In short, there is no agreement among the scholars of the past or present about the original
homeland of the so-called PIE speakers, their exact time of the dispersals, the exact phases or
waves they decided to migrate, its reasons and on when and where the Avesta and the Rig Veda
were composed. The hypotheses merely are based on the imagined migrations from either
direction. Almost all scholars has devised their theories to adjust supposed timelines and that,
too, seems to be from imaginary date of domestication of the horses, i.e. 3,500 BC, to explain
migrational directions of the so called PIE people. We have seen in the last chapter that there
could not have been such a case, i.e., existence of PIE language speaking, closely-knit
community and spread of their proto-language because of their subsequent migrations.

Beside linguistics, normally the stress of the scholars has been to consider Rig Veda being
elder than Avesta, presuming the language of the Rig Veda being more archaic. But what is
the proof to decide which language is archaic? If the language of Rig Veda is carefully
studied, it appears that notwithstanding the claim that the Vedas have been preserved as it
were from the date of its first composition, the Rig Veda has gone through substantial
linguistic modifications.

Witzel explains that the old Avesta of Zarathushtra is more archaic than the Rig Veda simply
because the Iranian lacks the many innovations that characterise the language of Veda. 6 This
does not at all mean that the date of Avesta is anterior to the Rig Veda. Rather, we will see in due
course that both the scriptures, in their originality, were contemporary though the language and
arrangement of the Rig Veda was modified, with new additions, to suite new environments in far
later times. A

Therefore, the myth that the Rig Veda has faithfully been preserved by oral tradition for
generations, till it was committed to writing, needs a rethinking. The compositions of Rig
Vedic hymns, too, continued for centuries before it was finally codified. We do not know
for sure when exactly it was first codified and committed to writing. The dates are very
vague and often have no more credence than being mere guesswork that extends for several
centuries to millenniums. It does not conclusively occur that the Vedas were written in
South India for first time in the second half of the 14th century AD. Even if we suppose the
moderate period of Rig Vedic compositions from 1,500 to 1,000 BC, and that of it’s being
reduced to written form after lapse of about 1,000-1,500 years without any change, it
certainly remains a myth that needs serious reconsideration.

On the contrary, the facts with Avesta are altogether different. There is proof of its being written
and later translated to Pahlavi to avoid any violent destruction. KE Edulji states that the first
report of the written Avestan text comes from the Middle Persian language (Pahlavi) writer Arda
Viraf, in his book, the Arda Viraf Nameh (3rd or 4th century CE). In it, as he writes that the
Persian Achaemenian kings (c. 600 - 300 BCE) commissioned the commitment of the Avesta to
writing on hides and deposited the texts in the royal library at Ishtakhr. "...the entire Avesta and
Zand, written on hides with gold ink, were deposited in the archives at Stakhar Papakan
(Ishtakhr, near Persepolis and Shiraz in Pars province)." Masudi gives the number of hides as
12,000.

“This written version of Avesta would have been available for others to read and Martin Haug
states that Hermippus, the philosopher of Smyrna (ca. 250 BCE), "…is reported by Pliny
(Historia Naturalis XXX., 1) to have made very laborious investigation into all Zoroastrian
books, which were said to comprise two million verses, and to have stated the contents of each
book separately." Regrettably, Hermippus' work has since been lost.” 7

The mention of ‘two million verses’ is nothing but exaggeration. However, Pliny (AD 23-79)
certainly was aware about the existence of written texts of Avesta. It seems that the Avesta was
translated in other languages like Arabic, Pahlavi, too, using various scripts including cuneiform.
We do not find such attempts or contemporary records about the existence of Rig Veda in the
written form. Indeed, we do not find Vedas being known to the western or eastern world, simply
because there is no explicit mention of it in any record or later epigraphs. Megasthanese (3rd
Century BC), too, does not mention the existence of Vedas, though he describes social structure
of that time at great length. 8

Oral tradition was not unknown to the Avestans. However, we see the difference between the
language of Gathas and later works which can be classified as early, middle and younger. The
language of the Rig Veda cannot be classified this way because it has undergone substantial
phonetic, syntactical and morphological modifications over the course of time after its original
composition. However, such stages of chronological development in the language are almost
absent, barring the instances of later interpolations, making one wonder that whether such
modifications were done sometime later at once to make it more intelligible to contemporary
generations? No language can remain uniform for such a vast span of the time as the Rig Vedic
language does.

However, leaving above enigmas aside for a while, let us investigate both the scriptures on
account of whether the historical events and characters find place in both the books and
determine whether the people following distinct religious practices knew each other or not!

ZARATHUSTRA: Various attempts have been made to locate the name of the prophet in Rig
Veda. Although the name ‘Jarutha’ appears thrice in the bulk of the Rig Veda, some scholars
seem inclined to reject the identification. However, let us not forget here that Zarathustra is
spelled differently in other languages, such as ‘Zoroaster’ in Greek. The other Iranian versions
spell the same as Zarathrost, Zaradust or Zaradrust etc. In Sanskrit, Zarathushtra is spelled as
Jarathuśtra (in Neriyosangh’s Sanskrit translation of the Avesta). The etymology of the name
given is Zarath (old) +Ustra (camel) or Zarath (driving or moving) + Ustra (Camel). Similarly,
the word Zarath denotes the priest or singer. 9

Let us not forget here that the phoneme Z finds loss in Vedic language, turns to J, Zarath will
thus come to be spelled as Jarath. With phonetic changes, while shortening the name Zarathustra,
the name can come to be spelled as Jarutha in Vedic dialect. Another supportive information we
get as, “The name Jarutha is derived by Sayana from Vgr, to 'sing, saying; it means one who
makes loud sound. ... form in its own way simply copied it from Vedic, for the Avestan Gen.
form of hartr would, on the analogy of datr, be zarthro or *zarithro.” 10

Let us have a look at the Rig Vedic verses where Jarutha is mentioned and in what context.

“Burn up all malice with those flames, O Agni, wherewith of old thou burntest up Jarutha,And
drive away in silence pain and sickness.” (RV 7.1.7 Trans. By Griffith)

“Vasistha, when enkindling thee, O Agni, hath slain Jarutha. Give us wealth in plenty. Sing
praise in choral song, O Jātavedas. Ye Gods, preserve us evermore with blessings.” (RV 7.9.6
Trans. By Griffith)

“Agni rejoiced the car of him who praised him, and from the waters, burnt away Jarutha. Agni
saved Atri in the fiery cave and made Nrmedha rich with troops of children.” (RV 10.80.3,
Trans. By Griffith.)

However, Macdonell defines Jarutha to denote a demon that was slain by Agni. He also referees
to the Griffith and Ludwig those see in him (Jarutha), a foe slain in the battle in which Vasishtha
was the priest.11 Hodivala after examining all the three verses states, “From the third passage, it
is clear that Jarutha must have been some demon who lived in waters.” However, Hodivala
examines further to conclude that Zarathustra is mentioned in the Rig Veda as ‘Dasyu’ because
he was frequently called as ‘Dakhyuma’ (equivalent to Rig Vedic Dasyu) and wherever, the
word is used in plural form, i.e. Dasyus, it is addressed to his followers.12

Let us examine the verses mentioned above to find what they mean. All the three verses laud the
deed of Agni for killing ‘Jarutha’ in fire. There is no mention anywhere in Rig Veda that Jarutha
denotes a demon or foe. Rather, it seems odd to find mention of Jarutha’s thrice to describing
only event of his death in the fire.

Some scholars have associated Jarutha of Rig Veda with Zarathushtra of Avesta. Indian scholar
PR Deshmukh states, “…From the above Richa we learn that Jarutha was killed by Vashishthas
by crossing water…..The word Jarutha means a priest…..Jarutha may be a short form of
Zartustra.”13

Apart from above two references, Jackson has given detailed accounts of Zarathushtra’s death
gathered from various sources; some are listed briefly as below:

1. Early Greek tradition says that Zoroaster was perished by lightning or a flame from
heaven. Latin tradition states that an angry star emitted a stream of fire in vengeance for his
conjuring up the stars and burnt him to ashes.

2. Gregory of Tours (A.D. 538-593) records etymology of Zoroaster as ‘living star’ stating
that the Persians worshipped him as a God because he was consumed by fire from heaven.

3. Chronicon Alexandrinum (A.D.629) states that while praying to the Orion, he was slain
by a heavenly shaft and that his ashes were carefully kept by the Persians.

4. Suidas of Tenth century A.D. briefly records the prophet’s death by fire from heaven.

5. Orosius (A.D. 5th Century) informs that Ninus conquered Zoroaster and killed him in the
battle.

6. Iranian tradition informs that the prophet died at the age of 77 years and 40 days and
ascribes the death it to a Turanian named Bratrokresh. The name of the murderer occurs several
times in the Avestan scriptures.

7. Datistan – I- Dinik, 72.8, states that among the most heinous sinners “one was Tur – e-
Bratarvaksh, the Karap and heterodox wizard, by whom best of the man (i.e. Jharatusht) was put
to death.” The similar account is given by Bundahishn naming the above cited assassin.

8. Dinkard III, chap. 343 lists the best and worst of men, naming Yam as the best of kings,
and Zardušt as the best of priests, and Tūr ī Brātrōkrēš, the karb “who made the body of Zardušt
perish,” as the worst of heretics. (Karb stands for Old Avestan Karapan, despised priests of the
enemy. The assassin in question in all probabilities was a priest-warrior.)
Apart from Greek and Latin, Pahlavi-Parsi tradition is unanimous that the Zoroaster perished at
the hands of Tur-i- Bratrokresh. Shahname, too, confirms the account of assassination of the
Prophet by Turanian raiders, led by Arjaspa, at the fire-temple.14

“During the ritual service, Hyaona insurgents stabbed the 77-year-old Zarathushtra, slew his
priests and burned the Avesta.” Thus states Mary Snodgrass.15 (Hyaona was the part of Turanian
clan which was led by Zarathushtra’s staunch enemy Arjaspa.)

What we learn from above is Zarathustra’s death was not natural. Most of the accounts agree that
he was killed in the fire or he along with his priests was killed and later burnt in a fire temple,
while he was praying. The assassin was a Turanian named Bratrokresh, may be a General,
leading Turanian raiding party to Balkh. The news of the killing of the prophet must have spread
across the adjoining regions adding imaginary details to it for they could not have possibly
known the exact account of the Prophet’s death. Hence, some traditions, such as Greek,
attributed the death to the ‘fire’ from heaven. Let us not forget here that the Greeks knew
Zarathushtra as magician and astrologer or even a sorcerer.

However, Zoroastrians did not commemorate martyrdom of their Prophet because in all
probability, the old tradition was more interested in his life and teachings than his physical death.

Now, if we reread the Rig Vedic verses, we easily can correlate them with the other legends
associated with the Zarathushtra’s death in fire, in all probability, an outcome of a war with
Turanians to whom we have identified with Turvasas of Rig Veda, who were sometimes friendly
with Rig Vedic tribe. It just cannot be a coincidence that most of the accounts in relation with
Zarathushtra’s death approximately match with the Rig Vedic verses.

Turanians, too, were friendly with Zarathushtra in the beginning which is evidenced by
Zarathushtra himself in the Gathas as under:

“Since through righteousness, the powerful children and grandchildren of the Turanian Fryana
have risen to promote their world through serenity with zeal, Wise God has united them with
good mind, in order to teach them what concerns their help.” (Gathas: 11-12)

It just shows that the inter-tribal and inter-faith relationship bonds were not permanent. Turvasas
had fought against Sudasa in Battle of Ten Kings though many a times they have shown intimate
friendly relations with Vedics.

However, we cannot of course, attribute the death to Vasishtha, as no Rig Vedic verse suggests
that the assassination of Zarathushtra was committed by Vasishtha. In the verses composed by
him, he attributes the death to ‘Agni’, fire. In fact, in the verse RV 7.9.6, he seems to be rejoicing
the death of enemy Jarutha. Looking at the rivalry between Rig Vedic and Avestan people,
becoming Vasishtha overjoyous and reflecting it in the verses composed by him (or his family
members) can be understood. Vasishtha seems to have recorded the incident in the peculiar
Vedic style. The verse 10.80.3 seems to be of far later times which have added confusing
element of Atri in it.

As Hodivala’s inference that Zarathushtra is mentioned in Rig Veda as Dasyu is thus

undoubtedly correct as during Zarathustra’s life time, for sake of the rivalry, Vedic seers must
have called him not by his personal name but contemptuous form of his epithet, Dasyu
(Dakhyuma). There is other proof, too, to confirm beyond doubt that Zarathushtra was
contemporaneous to the Rig Vedic seers which we will confirm further in the present chapter. To
sum up conclusively, in all, Jarutha of Rig Veda can be none other than Zarathushtra of Avesta.

Vishtaspa: The first disciple of Zarathushtra after revelation was the king of Balkh (Greek
version Bactria) Vishtaspa, a.k.a. Kavi Vishtaspa. Vishtaspa became the first disciple of
Zarathustra who not only patronised the resurrected religion but fought many wars for it. The
legends go that Vishtaspa built many fire temples in his kingdom. Prior to adapting Mazdayasni
religion, he must be adherent of one of other religions which existed and was practiced in those
times. From Avestan accounts, it seems that though the Turanians helped Zarathustra to reach
Vishtaspas royal court, turned out to be foes as Vishtaspa abandoned old faith and became a
disciple of Zarathushtra.

In the Rig Veda, he is mentioned as ‘Istasva’ (1.122.13). Hodiwala 16 notes that, as a rule the V
followed by a vowel drop the V in Vedic language. Following this principle, and Sayanas
translation, Hodivala translates the verse as:

“The despicable Vishtaspa of the family of Vishtarashma (=Gushtaham), (and) these conquering
chiefs harass the people.” The next verse, according to Hodivala, makes it clear that he was a
wealthy prince or king whose wealth was sought by the composers of the hymn i.e. Kakshivan,
Dairghatamas Ausijya etc. Talageri, too, agrees with the identification of Vishtaspa with Rig
Vedic Istasva. 17

Since Rig Vedic seers in all probability knew the patron of Zarathushtra, it makes obvious that
they knew Zarathushtra as well!

Pashotan: The youngest son of Vishtaspa, also known as Chitro-mino ((because he was living in
the vicinity of the River Chitru-mian-rud) according to Bundehishn Ch. 29 and Dadestan. 18

On verification of Bundehishn (ch. 29, verse 6), it seems Chitro-Mino is spelled as ‘Chatru-man-
icha’ in Pahlavi. The verse while informing the Peshotan, son of Vishtaspa tells us that Chatru-
man-icha was his other name. 19

The Rig Veda verse 4.30.17 states, “Arna and Citraratha, both Aryas, though, Indra slewest
swift, on yonder side of Sarayu.” (Trans. Griffith) From this stanza, we get account of a war on
the banks of river Sarayu (identified with Haroyu/Hari-rud) in which Arna and Chitraratha were
killed. Chitraratha seems to be clearly corrupt Sanskrit form of Chitra-mino or Chatru-man-icha.
Although, the identity of Arna remains uncertain, according to Hodivala, he could be brother of
Vishtaspa. Verse makes it clear that both the slain enemies were Aryas and that Arna was
someone of high rank, if not brother of Vishtaspa. The account of this war, Hodivala informs, is
confirmed by Shahname. 20

Hence, the identity of Peshotan is thus clear that he was contemporary to Rig Veda and that he
was at enemy side of not the Vedic people, but Turvasas and Yadus, which is clear from the
verses describing the event, i.e.

“So sapient Indra, Lord of Might, brought Turvasa and Yadu, those Who feared the flood, in
safel o'er” (RV 4.30.16 )

“Arna and Citraratha, both Aryas, though, Indra slewest swift, on yonder side of Sarayu.” (RV
4.30.17)

Both the verses clearly show that Turvasas and Yadus crossed the flooded river with the
assistance or blessings of Indra to the side where Chitraratha and Arna were slain in the war. The
Avestan account, too, supports this as sworn enemies of the Vishtaspa were Turanians alias
Turvasas and not the Rig Vedic tribe.

Also, it proves our hypothesis that the Yadus of Rig Veda couldn’t have been Yadus of Mathura,
because to become friendly tribes and have common enemies and friends, they must be located
in the close vicinity.

Baetas: Also known as Jamaspa Baetas, son-in-law of Zarathushtra (Yast 13.127) a master of
Astrology of those times. Rig Veda mentions Baetas as Vetasu in relation with a skirmish in the
following verse.

“The crafty Vetasu, the swift Dasni, and Tugra speedily with all his servants, Hath Indra,
gladdening with strong assistance, forced near as it were to glorify the Mother.” (RV 6.20.8,
Trans. Griffith)

Hodivala suggests from previous and later verse of the above of Rig Veda that the Vetasu
(Baetas) was defeated by Rjrasva (Arjaspa). Though, Tugra remains unidentifiable, it certainly is
an Iranian name. The term ‘Dasni’ applied for Vetasu is either for his 10 servants or he being
possessor of 10 magical powers (crafty) or is addressed to 10 sons of Vistaspa those who
participated in this war. 21

Arjaspa (Alternatively spelled as Arejat-aspa): He was chief of one of a Tribe Hyaona, delving
in Turan or its bordering region to Balkh (Bactria). He was a sworn enemy of Vishtaspa after his
conversion to Zoroastrian faith. Arjaspa fought many wars against Vishtaspa and killed many of
his family members. Middle Persian text Ayādgār ī Zarērān (66, 67, 112, 113) states that Arjaspa
was captured later, was mutilated and then was released. Shahnama informs us that Arjapa had
managed to flee after his capture.22
Arjaspa of Avesta is identified by many scholars as Rjrasva of Rig Veda. Rjrasva seems to be a
close ally of Vedic people whose victories has been rejoiced and memorised by Rig Veda. First,
the name of both persons, though spelled slightly different, mean one and the same i.e. one who
has swift horses. Second, many of the battles those involve Rjrasva are also recorded in the
Avestan texts. Also, his allies and close relations, too, find mention in both the texts.

Rig Vedas major mention of Rjrasva is about Varsagira battle which Rig Veda recounts as:

“The red and tawny mare, blaze-marked, high standing, celestial who, to bring Rjrasva riches, /
Drew at the pole the chariot yoked with stallions, joyous, among the hosts of men was noted.
“(RV 1.100.16)

“The Varsagiras unto thee, O Indra, the Mighty One, sing forth this laud to please thee, Rjrasva
with his fellows, Ambarisa, Suradhas, Sahadeva, Bhayamana.” (RV 1.100.17, Trans. Griffith)

Apart from the identity of protagonist of this war Rjrasva, names of his companions, too, have
been identified. Sahadeva is identified with Hushdiv who is mentioned by Shahnama as assisting
Rjrasva from the rear in the war. Hodivala states that Avesta mentions Humayuka (RV Somaka)
instead of Hushdiv, i.e. Sahadeva.23

The verse of Yast in the regard goes like this:

'He begged her of a boon, saying: "Grant me this, O good, most beneficent Ardvi Sura Anahita!
That I may overcome Pesho-Changha the corpse-burier, Humayaka the worshipper of the
Daevas, and the wicked Arejat-aspa, in the battles of this world.’ (Aban yast, 5.113)

Here, the verse suggests the above prayer was made before the war. Hence, in all probabilities,
he did not know who would be the participants of the war but seems to have mentioned those
who were expected.

Another participant in the war that Rig Veda mentions is Ambarisha, to whom Hodivala
identifies, but little doubtfully, with Avestan Vidarafshnik, brother of Arjaspa as both the names
mean one and the same, ‘one with beautiful garments’. Bhayamana is identified with
Vandaremaini, father of Arjaspa, because both the terms mean ‘the fearless one’. Varsagira,
since the term is applied to all the family members of Rjrasva, it is possible that it was Rjrasva’s
family name.

Although, Talageri seems satisfied with the identifications for his need to push his theory, he
forgets Somaka and Sahadeva do not at all belong to the race of Sudasa for there is no
corroborative proof.

Let us see the verses of Yast those seem to have been composed prior to the war.

“5.108. 'Unto her did the tall Kavi Vishtaspa offer up a sacrifice behind Lake Frazdanava, with a
hundred male horses, a thousand oxen, ten thousand lambs.
5.109. 'He begged of her a boon, saying: "Grant me this, O good, most beneficent Ardvi Sura
Anahita! that I may overcome Tathravant, of the bad law, and Peshana, the worshipper of the
Daevas and the wicked Arejat-aspa, in the battles of this world!"

5.113. 'He begged of her a boon, saying: "Grant me this, O good, most beneficent Ardvi Sura
Anahita! that I may overcome Pesho-Changha the corpse-burier, Humayaka the worshipper of
the Daevas, and the wicked Arejat-aspa, in the battles of this world.

5.116. 'Unto her did Arejat-aspa and Vandaremaini offer up a sacrifice by the sea Vouru-
Kasha, with a hundred male horses, a thousand oxen, ten thousand lambs.”24

For the sake of readers’ convenience, I have put names in questions in bold letters. It is quite
clear that these are prayers and offerings prior to the expected war. The enemies are condemned
because they are following Deva faith. Humayuka (Somaka) and Vandaremaini (Bhaymana) in
the above verses have not been distinguished from the race of Arjaspa (Rjrasva). Though the
Hushdiv (Sahadeva) is mentioned in Shahnama, he, too, does not show that the Hushdiv
belonged to different tribes other than of Arjaspa.

Even if the fact is proven from the Rig Vedic and Avestan accounts that the war and the
participants of it were historical, it nowhere suggests the war included any tribe other than of
Arjaspa (Rjrasva). The actual conflicts on religious issues that Avesta mentions mostly were
between Turanians and Zoroastrians. The Avesta is clear on the fact that Turanians were Deva
worshipers and hence, were wicked.

Most importantly, what we clearly see from the above is that the Somaka alias Humayuka and
Hushdiv alias Sahadeva were not the descendents of King Sudasa as some scholars like Talageri
likes to believe they were! In the list of Puru kings, he includes Somaka and Sahadeva as
descendents of Sudasa and places Varsagiras battle after the battle of ten kings.25 However,
Rjrasva, the main protagonist of the war, is not named in the bloodline of Sudasa at all because
he did not have that origin! Looking at these facts, Aban Yast proves beyond doubt that the
people mentioned as an enemy belonged to the family of Arjaspa and none of the Sudasa’s
descendents or contemporaries led the war.

Most probably, Talageri is associating Somaka and Sahadeva with Sudasa dynasty on a guess
that since the Seer Vamadeva in Danastutis (RV 4.15.7-10) mention Somaka as son of Sahadeva
and that in the same hymn are mentioned Devavata and his son Srinjaya, it must formed a
bloodline. However, the purpose of the hymn should be noted. The hymn is composed in praise
for the gifts received by Vamadeva for his performing sacrifices or prayers for ailing prince
Somaka. While praising the donor prince Somaka, Vamadeva also is recounting Devavata and
his son Srinjaya in relation with a myth that the “He who is kindled eastward for Sṛñjaya,
Devāvata's son,…” (RV 4.15.4). The hymn does not intend in any way to show that Somaka and
Sahadeva were descendents of Sudasa or were related any way with Srinjaya and Devavata,
which makes Talageri’s claim baseless.
Hodivala is hesitant while identifying Ambarisha with Vidarafshnic and Bhayamana with
Vandaremaini on account of, although the meaning of both the words is same but quite different
in sound. However, looking at his confirmation of identification of Humayuka with Somaka to
which Talageri, too, agrees, in my opinion there is no need of hesitation in confirming identity of
Ambarisha and Bhayamana as well because it just cannot be coincident that the names bear same
meaning and that since there is no confusion of Arjaspa being Rjrasva and Humayuka being
Somaka, the other participants mentioned in Aban Yast and Rig Veda, too, must be identical,
mentioned in translated form in Rig Veda with sound change but maintaining same meaning!

Rig Veda mentions this Varsagiras war in just two verses (1.100.16-17) jumping to the other
victories of Rjrasva over Dasyus like Shimyu and others mentioning them just here and there
vaguely confirms our deliberation that Zarathushtra was more concerned about hostile Turanians
than Rig Vedic people. This we have to take very seriously as Avesta does not mention at all any
Rig Vedic king or their faiths as being a serious threat to his religion. Avestan accounts too treat
Arjaspa (Rjrasva) as main enemy of Vishtaspa and Zoroaster.

The identification of Rig Vedic seer Nodhas Gautama with Nadhyaongha Gaotema who is
mentioned in Farvardin Yast (Yt. 13.16), as a priest, who was defeated by Zarathustra in debate,
makes our conclusion stronger that early Avesta and Rig Veda were contemporary. This is the
only instance where we find mention of Rig Vedic seer in Avesta.

We must not forget here that the early Rig Vedic faith involved ‘Asura’ as a Supreme Lord in the
form of Asura Varuna though in later course of the time, for reasons, became Deva oriented. We
have seen in the earlier chapter that this shift has been occurred after the battle of ten kings
which involved Sudasa himself and not before that! Though, the Asura orientation was clear in
both the religions the religious practices and philosophies significantly differed. RigVedic tribe/s
settled down in southern part of Afghanistan, the enmity between the both, it seems, arose later,
although, the hatred must have been brewing since beginning. The defeat of Nodhas Gautama
was in a debate, not in the war, may confirm the above fact.

We also have seen that the real enmity was between Turanians and Avestans. The assassination
of the Zarathustra is attributed to a Turanian while Rig Vedic Vasishtha seems to be just happily
mentioning the prophet’s death in the fire.

After death of Zarathustra and decline of the clan of Vishtaspa and Turanians, Vedics seems to
have got the space to declare their supremacy. Sudasa rightly achieved that through the victory in
the battle of ten kings!

Turanians, as we have identified with Turvasas, were occasionally friendly with Rig Vedic
tribe/s. The friendliness between both the tribes must have been normal during the period of
Varsagiras war. However, the war is summed up in only two verses in the Rig Veda, mostly
because, Vedics did not participate it at all! The despicable mention of Zarathustra’s patron
Istasva (Vishtaspa) in Rig Veda (1.122.13) must have been occurred for their friendship with
Turvasas, (Turanians) who had enmity with Vishtaspa and his faith. Here we may arrive to
conclusion that the Battle of Ten Kings is a far later incidence in Rig Vedic history and not as
early as some scholars like to think.

Why Turvasas could only be Turanians of Avesta? The facts as stated in this chapter no way can
indicate otherwise. Turvasa as a tribe is only mentioned whenever Turvasas along with Yadus
had waged the wars along with the Vedics with common enemies. Rather in the battle of ten
kings, Yadu-Turvasas have fought against King Sudasa. We have seen all other tribes are
identified with the people living in either North-west part of India or Southern and northern
Afghanistan and Iran. As for Yadus, though identity is not clear, one verse of Rig Veda informs
us:

“A hundred thousand have I gained from Parsu, from Tirindira,

And presents of the Yadavas.” (RV 8.6.46)

Parsus are undisputedly identified with Persians. The name Tirindira, too, is of Persian origin.26
Yadus are mentioned together with Persians in the above verse. From this verse we find that
Yadus and Persian tribes, too, were occasional donors of Rig Vedic seers, although, they may not
be patrons of it. Most of the times, Yadus have been mentioned together with Turvasas in Rig
Veda clearly stating ‘coming from afar’. It could be an indicator to find the location of Yadus in
North Afghanistan or Iran, exactly which, may not be determined conclusively.B The battle we
have discussed, recorded by Aban Yast and Rig Veda, was between Turanians and Zoroastrians
and not between Rig Vedic tribe and Zoroastrians, as is believed by some.

Now, let us have a look at other identifications made by the scholars whether they too are true or
not.

Atharvan and Athravan

The role of Athravan is highly important in the Zoroastrian religion as fire priests which, too, are
based on fire rites, though of different kind than of Vedic rites. Athravan means fire-guardian;
the attendant of the sacred fire in Persian temples; the proper word for a priest in the Avesta. His
main religious duty is to perform Yasna (Sk. Yadnya, i.e. fire sacrifice) and protect sacred fire.
Atharvan mentioned in Rig Veda have been tried to equate with Avestic Athravans and it seems
to be serious problem.

First, we must note here that the Atharvans in Vedic tradition, though they usually are associated
with fire, their Veda (i.e. Atharva Veda) is not meant for fire sacrificial rituals at all. Rather in
structure, practice and content, it stands contrary to other fire sacrifice oriented Vedas. This was
the very reason why Atharva Veda, till late times, did not receive recognition as fourth ‘Veda’.
N. K.Singh states, “…But the Atharvanic literature consisting of the Samhitas of the two schools,
wiz. Saunaka and Paippalada, the Gopath Brahmana and a number of Upanisadas attached to the
Atharva Veda have their own religion and philosophy.” 27 In short, there is hardly any
resemblance in religious practices or philosophy of both the Rig Vedic and Atharvan religions.
The fact is since Atharva Veda never meant to be fire-sacrifice-oriented religion; it is not a
surprise that it never received higher status although, it got elevated as fourth Veda only after
some interpolations, such as insertion of about 1/7th part of Rig Veda and associating mythical
sages as authors with it! Still it be a question, how then “Atharva Veda” had been associated with
the Atharvans!

Atharvans of Rig Veda

The name ‘Atharvan’ occurs 14 times in Rig Veda and is mentioned thrice in plural while it
appears several times in Atharva Veda. Angirasas were sired by Seer Angira, as per mythology,
Atharvas were offsprings of seer Bhrigu, thus it makes a family, being Angira and Bhrigu blood
brothers. But the Rig Vedic accounts are not clear about this. Though the term Atharva is
associated with fire, it has uncertain etymology. Atharvan is considered to be an ancient sage
who introduced fire. 28

The verse RV 1.83.5 states that “Atharvan first by sacrifices laid the paths then, guardian of the
Law, sprang up the loving Sun. / Usana Kavya straightway hither drove the kine. Let us with
offerings honour Yama's deathless birth.”

However, the introduction of the fire also is attributed to Matarisva, Bhrigu and even Angirasas
in Rig Veda. The Athravan of Avesta is said to be evolved from ‘Atar’, fire. It also is assumed
that the Atar got associated with Athravan by folk etymology. Rahurkar states that the Athravan
of Avesta and Atharvan of Rig Veda are etymologically equivalent, meaning ‘fire priest’. 29

There also are claims that the Vedic Atharvan is a loan word from Iranians. 30 Etymology of
Avestan ‘Athravan’, though remains disputed, however, its origin, as seen above, could be traced
to Avestan ‘Atar’, which means ‘holy fire’ or just “fire”.31 Since the duty of Athravan was to
protect fire, the term Athravan might have evolved from Atar to Athravan to denote, he, who
protects the holy fire!

We have to see how Athravans were regarded in Avestan religion. Heesterman informs, the
social status of Athravan was as priestly servant of the kings and Magnates, which does not
speak for their high status or spiritual authority. He also tells us that the Athravans were not
blood related but were selected carefully as priests from different families. In later times, Magus
(Magi or Magavan) replaced Athravans as priests, thus putting an end to the Athravan tradition.32
However, on the contrary, Atharvans of Rig and Atharva Veda was a priestly family of eminence
claiming divine origin.

Avestan ‘Athravan’, protector of fire, seems to be a pre-Avestan term. Rig Vedic people (or tribe
of Atharvans which joined Vedic stream) seem to have borrowed (or inherited by the later
entrants in Rig Vedic tradition) the term from Iranian to create a mythical person out of it. The
Vedic word ‘Agni’ for fire is missing from Avesta, which means Iranians had separate term for
fire, i.e. ‘Atar’. This is quite possible that fire worshippers, Atharvans, of another tribe delving in
those regions later joined the Vedic tradition, keeping their identity distinct and exalted as
Atharvans of divine origin.

This can be proved from the very fact that the terms ‘Atharva’, ‘Angirasa’ and ‘Bhrigu’, all are
associated with the fire and boasting of their remote and divine ancestry, keeping their
independent identities and faiths distinguishable from others! Also, it is clear that these seer
families got associated with Rig Vedic tradition in different times, Bhrigus, in all probability,
being the last. This also means that Rig Veda was not composed under single patronage or by
seer families of a single tribe.

We have seen above that the Somaka and Sahadeva were not descendents of Sudasa. Some of his
ancestors are identifiable from Rig Veda, but we not get any evidence that after Sudasa’s era,
who took over his reign and patronage of Rig Vedic religion, though from Danastutis (Praises of
donors) we get indication that various tribes, alternatively, had patronised the Vedic seers.

Apart from Rig Veda, we find Atharvans, Bhrigu and Angirasa too are associated with Atharva
Veda. We have seen above that the Atharvan tradition is nowhere connected with Rig Vedic
sacrificial practices and philosophies. Rather, it is an independent religion. Still, this association
is surprising. C

Atharva Veda was known alternatively as Atharvangiras and Bhrugvangiras Veda. As per
Gopatha Brahmana, in the beginning, Atharva Veda and Angiras Veda were independent works.
Some scholars tend to believe both Vedas were combined together in later times or the Veda of
Angirasas was lost in course of the time.33

However, it clearly seems that none of the celebrated seers actually could have been composer of
this Veda, but in the later times, to elevate its status, these celebrated seer families were
associated with it as their composers. This probability also can be justified as 1/7th part of the
Rig Veda, too, was incorporated in it to provide sanctity to this work.

To sum up, Rig Vedic Atharvan and Avestan Athravan couldn’t have any connection except for
the application of the term. Although, Indian mythology relates Bhrigu, Angira as brothers, born
of Brahma’s manly vigour and Atharvans and Angirasas as their offsprings, making them of
common lineage, as Gopatha Brahmana narrates, couldn’t possibly have been the case. They
were independent families having different faiths those very well reflect in their compositions of
Rig Veda. 34

ANGRA AND ANGIRASA

Angra Mainyu of Zoroastrian faith stands opposite to Lord Ahur Mazda as head of the demons
and evil spirits, i.e. Daevas. It is clear that the Angra Mainyu is not a proper name but a term
designated collectively for the evil forces.
There have been attempts of co-relating Angra Mainyu of Avesta and Angirasa, prominent seer
family of Rig Veda. Hodivala states that since Angirasas have not been spoken with any
contempt, they may not have been inclined towards Zoroastrian religion. It is clear from his
deliberation that in Gathas, he thinks, Zarathustra is addressing the Angirasas as enemies. In
short, Hodivala believes Angirasas are none but Angras of Avesta.35

Shrikant Talageri also believes ‘Angra’ of Avesta are none but Angirasas of Vedic tradition, to
prove his point that the main enemies of Iranians were Vedic people. However, his logic is
slightly different as he states that since the priests of the Iranians were Athravans (equated with
Bhrigu) and that the words Angra and Druj appears throughout in Avesta as epithets for demon
enemies of Ahur Mazda and Zarathustra, Angirasas could be none but Angra of the Avesta. To
him, Angra Mainyu is a term derived from the name of the Angirasas (Priests of the Vedic
Aryans) out of hostility between the Vedic Aryans and the Iranians. Also he claims that Avesta
shows movement of a group from among the Bhrigus, Iranian priests, toward the side of Devas.36

However, this logic is not tenable because we have seen that there couldn’t have been any
relationship between Atharvans of Rig Veda and Athravans of Avesta. For more clarity, let us go
through the following points.

1. Angra Mainyu is not at all the proper name but is an epithet of the evil spirits or demons.
Angra Mainyu in Avesta represents the destructive forces as against creative forces of Spenta
Mainyu. (Yast, 13.12-13)

2. Ahur Mazda, for that matter, too, is not the proper name but represents Lord of wisdom
or intellect. Ahur Mazda is creator of all entities but is also the father of the entities.37

3. In Avesta, Angra Mainyu is called the twin brother of the Holy Spirit and contrasted with
Spenta Mainyu. He is all destroying Satan, the source of all evil in the world, and like Ahur
Mazda, existed since the beginning of the world.38

4. In Rig Veda, Angirasas claim their race to semi-divine origin and are attendants of Agni.
Also, this family was rather outside of the main Vedic tradition, as they do not seem prominent
in books 2 to 4. Also, Angirasas were treated by poets (Vedic seers) as a real clan.39

5. If Angra is to be equated with Angirasas, who were fire priests of Rig Vedic tradition and
Avesta, too, being a fire centric religious book, it is insane to think that Zarathushtra would make
them, out of sheer enmity, an evil force to stand against almighty Ahur Mazda.

6. When ‘Angra’ term just represents ‘Evil’, ‘Angirasa’ name represents ‘Agni’ (fire), hence
etymologically too, both the terms have different meanings showing no connection between both
the terms. D

From the above brief, it is clear that to Avesta, ‘Angra’ is none but epithet of destructive spirit or
forces, but how it can be connected with Rig Vedic Angirasas who were just a priestly family?
Zoroaster in the Gathas composed by himself, does not use term Angra Mainyu for the person or
group of persons but for the evil, destructive spirits or minds. For good spirits, Zoroaster uses the
term ‘Spenta Mainyu’. Avesta depicts the eternal conflict between good and bad spirits. Hence,
considering Angra, epithet of Avesta, and the seer family Angirasas of Veda’s one and the same
would be a fatal mistake, such as made by Shrikant Talageri. BHRIGU

From Rig Veda, it appears that before Rig Veda came to being composed, progenitor Bhrigu had
become a distant memory.

‘Bhrigu’ name derives from the root bhrk, meaning the blazing of the fire’ professed immense
reverence towards the elements of fire on earth viz the life and warmth giving Sun and the Fire.
However, some Sanskrit scholars believe that the root bhrk or bhraj and word Bhrigu may not
have Sanskrit origin.40

The Bhrigu tradition is peculiar in their possessing different faiths and representing rival sides.
(e.g. Shukracharya of Brigu clan is said to be Guru of Asuras.) From Rig Veda, it would mean
that the original Bhrigu, Atharva or Angira, progenitors of respective clans, were not the
historical persons but fire element personified and in later ages, came in to the use as proper
name or family name by different people.

Talageri wants to enforce his fanciful idea that the Bhrigus were associated with Anus, who,
according to him, were Iranians. However, Macdonell states that “The Bhrigus were connected
with this tribe (Anus) is much more doubtful. It rests on the sole fact that they are mentioned in
one place together with Druhyus and not Anus. (RV 7.18.4)41

In fact, Bhrigus do not find any mention in Avesta. Thinking Athravans and Atharvans one and
the same, Talageri has concocted his entire theory that the Anus were Iranians. In the battle of
ten kings, Bhrigu, too, was one of the participants against Sudasa. It is unclear from these hymns
that whether Bhrigu was a name of the tribe or a family name. The war hymns (RV 7.18, 7.33)
do not indicate anyway that the Bhrigus had participated in the war in the capacity of the priest
of Anus (or any other tribe for that matter).

Unlike Angirasa, who are dominant priests of Rig Veda, Bhrigus, though enemies of Rig Vedic
tribe/s during battle of ten kings, entered the Rig Vedic tradition much later.

Bhrigus, being earlier enemies of King Sudasa and forgetting their past rivalry joining the Rig
Vedic tradition at later times only indicates that the clan of Sudasa had reached its end, may be
after lapse of few or more generations and the Rig Vedics had found patrons in other tribes.
Bhrigus must be belonging to some other adversary tribe during the period of Sudasa. There
were far many tribes delving in the vast territories of ancient Iran (including modern day
Afghanistan) which is evident from the Rig Veda and Avesta itself. We must not forget that it
was not the conflict between Avestan and Vedic tribes alone, as scholars like to believe, because
during that time, none of the both religions had become dominant enough to wipe out other faiths
to leave these two religions to stand opposite each other.

Though, the fundamental conceptual division of divine and evil forces was complete, the deities
and demons representing it were different from people to people. Sometimes, the representation
went opposite; as we see the worshipers of Daeva were despised by Zarathustra whereas the
Turanians and some other tribes worshiped Daevas. In what form and with which names other
tribes worshipped Devas, we do not know for certain as they are not explicitly named in either
scripts. But we can guess from the Rig Veda that there were some tribes those did not perform
fire sacrifices of any kind. There also were tribes who performed genital worship named
despicably as Shisnadevans (worshipers of phallic god) in Rig Veda. Hence, some of the Daevas
must have been praised in the form of the idols or symbols and some in abstract form. Some
tribe’s religion seems to be fire-centric, but essentially not same as Rig Vedic or Avestan. There
were tribes, Ayajju, without sacrifice, Anyavrata, having different faith, but what was their faith
also is not clear from Rig Veda.

Rig Veda thus seems to have been composed by seers having different traditions and though,
they became composers of the Rig Veda, their priorities of the deities and epithets have been
drastically changed in the hymns they composed. The Rig Vedic tradition clearly seems to have
shifted from Asura to Deva. The decline of Varuna and rise of Indra, or many deities suddenly
surfacing those were unknown to early Rig Veda only shows, how with changing patrons or
admission of the seers belonging to distinct faiths and tribes in Rig Vedic tradition, has created
colas of deities and ever changing priorities during the offerings.

This is why in Rig Veda, we hardly find any consistency that is expected from a religious book.
That could be called as weakness or can be lauded as a cosmopolitan nature of the Rig Veda!

Kavi

Kavis of Avesta seems to be enemies of Zarathustra. However, Kavi had been the epithet of
many Avestan Kings, such as of Kavi Vishtaspa, who was the first patron of Zarathushtra. His
mythical dynasty, too, is known as Kayanian (of Kavys). Still, it seems from Avesta that Kavis
were called wicked, worthy enough to be hurled down, such as in Yasna 32.14 42

Talageri, in this regard, states, “The pre-Avestan (and pre-Rigvedic) Kavi Usan (Kavi USanA or
USanA KAvya) is lauded in the BahrAm YaSt (Yt.14.39) and AbAn YaSt (Yt.5.45). Also, a
dynasty (the most important dynasty in Avestan and Zoroastrian history) of kings from among
the Kavis is twice lauded in the Avesta, in the FarvardIn YaSt (Yt.13.121) and the ZamyAd YaSt
(Yt.19.71). The kings of this dynasty, named in these YaSts, include Kavi KavAta (KaikobAd of
later times) and Kavi Usadhan (Kai Kaus of later times, who is regularly confused, in later
traditions, with the above Kavi Usan).
“However, the Kavis as a class are regularly condemned throughout the Avesta, right from the
GAthAs of Zarathustra onwards, and it is clear that they are regarded as a race of priests
who have joined the ranks of the enemies even before the period of Zarathustra himself.” 43
(Emphasis mine).

Here, it clearly seems, Talageri is treating Kavis as a race of the priests. In addition, he blatantly
claims that they attained the position of the enemies before Zarathustra, but he forgets,
Zarathustra’s first patron was Kavi Vishtaspa!

Malati Shendge states that the meaning of Vedic epithet Kavi emphasised the element of
intelligent insight into the things whereas Kavi of Avesta means protector, guardian and ‘watch
over’. Further, she states that the term Kavi acquired bad meaning on account of historical
reasons. It came to be used for the princes/kings those were opposed to the Zoroastrian faith. The
term later was used as ‘willfully blind’ as opposed to the Sanskrit sense. 44

From Avesta, we can clearly see the fact that Kavi was not a class of the priests, but an epithet of
the kings and princes which goes contrary to what Talageri suggests. ‘Shaname’ informs
Vishtaspa was last of the ruler of his (Kayanian) dynasty who had patronised Zarathustra’s faith.
Hence, using epithet Kavi to him in honour doesn’t come as surprise. We do not get any clue as
to who were the patron kings after the death of Vishtaspa to Zoroastrian religion for Avesta is
silent about it! In fact, however, it is clear that there was not any as the epithet Kavi became a
despicable term addressed to all kings those opposed to this faith. We mustn’t forget here that
Zarathustra was killed well before demise of Vishtaspa.

Also, let us not forget here that Kavi Kavasha (also spelled as Kay Kaus in Pahlavi and confused
with Kavi Usan) of Avesta was a mythical King. Among the enemies of King Sudasa in battle of
ten kings was Kavi Cayamana, who was of Parthian origin. (RV 7.18.8)

This only does indicate that Kavi was an epithet of the Iranian/Parthian tribal kings, not
necessary of the same ethnicity or adherents of same religion. What we gather from above is
‘Kavi’ of non-Vedic tradition of ancient Iran were mere title of the royals whereas, in the Vedic
tradition, the epithet was used as poet/singer/intelligent/seer etc. and sometimes was used to
address gods like Indra, Agni, Soma etc. Also, we can confirm from this that the relationship of
the Vedics was fluctuating with the contemporary tribes of that region, as Parthians, once lauded
friends, too had joined the battle of ten kings against Sudasa.

However, the term used by Avesta explicitly for royals and as after Kavi Vishtaspa, none came
forward to their aid; the term seems to have become detestable. However, we can find such turns
and shifts in the meaning of the terms in both the scriptures. Not necessarily, the conflicts
recorded in the Rig Veda were just between Avestan and Vedic people. We have seen that the
main rivals of the Zarathustra were Turanians (Turvasas) and not Vedic people. In battle of ten
kings, we find all major tribes, such as Parthian, Persian, Turanian (Turvasas) Pakhtun etc had
assembled together to defeat Sudasa, though, they failed in their endeavour.
We have briefly discussed how the seers of different tribes must have joined the Vedic stream
while carrying in their own myths and philosophies in case of the Bhrigus and Atharvans, there
are another two enigmatic seer families, i.e. Kanvas and Agastyas, those show clearly their
distinct origin.

Kanvas: It seems Kanvas were an ethnically different group. They are explicitly described as
dark brown (RV 10.31.11), distinguishing them from other seer families. It is believed by some
scholars that the influx of non-Aryan beliefs in Rig Veda is owed to Kanvas. Kuiper states that
“The case in the point of myth about an archer god, who cleaves a mountain with his arrow, kills
the boar Emusa and gains access to the cooked rice-milk (Odana). The myth is grafted upon
Indra-Vritra –myth, is mainly found in the eighth Mandala….” Further, Kuiper adds that the
myth was introduced by Kanvas whose non-Aryan origin is probable for several reasons. In
Brahmana and Sutra period, Kanvas are even called as non-Brahmina. (A-bhrahmana).
Moreover, the word Kanva does not fit into the structure of Vedic dialect!

Kuiper further states that the magical practices were legitimated because of Kanvas in the Vedic
tradition. Also, he states that all Kanvas did not aspire for the membership of the Aryan (i.e.
Vedic) society. Those who stayed behind were naturally feared as dangerous sorcerers as is
documented by the well-known hymn Saun. (II.25.3-5). Here, the Kanvas are described as
people who drank blood and ate embryos. It is also argued the Kanvas were of foreign origin
because of the linguistic differences that makes their book apart from other family books. 45

Shrikant Talageri states that “The Atris and Kanvas are also relatively neutral families, but in a
different sense from the Bhrgus and Agastyas. These two families, in fact, are not only not
affiliated to the Bharatas in particular or the Purus in general, but they are more often associated
with non-Purus (Iksvakus, Yadus, Turvasas, Anus). This association is basically mercenary: the
Atris and Kanvas appear to have officiated as priests for, and composed Danastutis in praise of
any king (irrespective of his tribal identity) who showered them with gifts. This more catholic or
cosmopolitan nature of these two families is also recognised (in the case of the Atris) in I.117.3,
where Atri is characterised as PAñcajanya (belonging to all five tribes).” 46

Here, we find that Kanvas certainly were not originally associated with the contemporary Vedic
tribe. They had independent existence, so may be the case with Atris as well. When they joined
Rig Vedic stream, though they followed the Vedic ritualistic tradition in that course, they
maintained their original independent identity through their compositions.

Agastya: Probably, Agastya is the most enigmatic seer of Rig Veda whose character alone sets
him apart from the early Rig Vedic seers. First of all, we have no certain etymology of his name.
The forced etymology probably developed to explain his name through a fable of later times
attributed to a deed of some other Agastya that he asked mountain Vindhya to prostrate before
him thus restricting the ever rising height of the Vindhya…hence, his name is Agastya. This
fable clearly is a creation of later times because Vedic dialect and later Sanskrit was unable to
provide any etymology of this name. In Rig Veda, his alternative personal names are Manya (son
of Mana) and Mandarya, (Rig. 7.33.13) which shows clearly that the Agastya was a family name.

According to Vedic legend, he was son of Mitra-Varuna and brother of seer Vasishtha. The
legend goes like this, once Mitra-Varuna had visited a sacrifice session where their sight fell on
the heavenly courtesan Urvashi. A craving for her tempted them to ejaculate in an earthen pot
from which Vasishtha and Agatsya took birth. 47 However, the legend is to explain mystic or
unknown origin of both the seers because Agastya certainly is not considered to be a
contemporary of Vasishtha.

In Rig Veda, there are almost 26 hymns attributed to him. The hymns of the first Mandala,
considered by scholars as one of the youngest book, open with hymns to Maruts and Indra,
followed by abruptly inserted dialogue between Agastya and his wife Lopamudra and ends up
with a charm against poisonous animals. These hymns are peculiar in nature and stand apart from
the overall style of the Rig Veda. His other hymns are incorporated in the eighth Mandala.

About his verses, states Jamison et al, “His hymns are stylistically creative, uses puns and verbal
play, intricate similes, unexpected turns of phrases, syntactic innovations and striking imagery.
He is also said to have contributed to development of Vedic ritual practices.” 48

Kuiper states that the myth of Agastya and Lopamudra cannot stem out of proto-Indo-Iranian
culture. The name Agastya or Agasti itself is non-Aryan and probably points to the totemism,
indicating his foreign origin, incidentally, the circumstances that the plant name Agasti is not
attested in Sanskrit, but Dravidian. Further, he suggests that like Kanvas, Agastya’s figure was
not fully Aryanised in Vedic times. 49

Kuiper’s Aryan and Non-Aryan division as far the languages or race is unwarranted as every
tribe residing in those regions must have been speaking a variety of similar dialects but mixed
with some of distinct vocabularies and epithets accumulated from the ancient past. Based on this
to determine Agastya had Dravidian origin will be a bold hypothesis. Though in the later times,
his namesake or descendent have been associated with South India. However, it is clear that
Agastya, too, did not belonged originally to the Vedic tribe.E Vedic tradition, in the course of the
time could have adapted by various nearby tribes from whom some seer families originated like
Kanvas, Agastyas and Bhrigus.

Brahmana mythologies and Iranian connection

We have seen in the earlier chapters and above that the Vedic culture, religious practices and
philosophy differed to a great extent with Indians of those times, showing no influence on each
other. Though, we are not certain exactly when Rig Veda was composed, it is clear from above
that the Avesta and Rig Veda were contemporary works, having tremendous influence on each
other, not only linguistic but ritualistic as well. We have also seen earlier in this chapter that both
the histories, too, are quite close exhibiting their knowledge of the personalities from each
other’s traditions. Only geographical closeness, needless to mention, was the major reason for
such influences.

The Brahmana literature, though considered to be younger, composed after compilation of

Vedas, the mythologies they bear are certainly of old origin and most probably emerged in early
times when Rig Vedic religion was shaping up. It is quite possible that while the Rig Vedic
compositions were gradually taking place, for the need of methodising its ritualistic applications,
some standardisation was required. Thus, Brahmanas must have as ancient roots as Rig Veda
have, though they took final shape with additions and modifications in post-Rig Vedic times.

The mythology related with Deva-Asura conflict that appears in Brahmana literature, clearly
echoes its ethos of Rig Vedic people’s struggle with the Asura or Ahura worshippers of Iran, not
necessarily with Zoroastrians alone. Let us not forget here that Asuras are treated as elder
brothers of Devas, both being ofsprings of Prajapati. It only shows the oneness of faith between
‘Asura’ oriented tribes in early times as we have seen that in the beginning Rig Vedic faith, too,
was Asura oriented. This is obvious from the Asura epithet generously used for Vedic Gods like
Varuna, Indra, and Agni. The shift from Asura to Deva orientation, most probably, seems to have
occurred after the battle of ten kings or little later.

Asuras of Brahmana are not as same as depicted in Indian mythologies. They are clearly shown
performing sacrificial rituals, but, to them, of inferior nature. Asuras of Brahmanas or Vedas in
no way are idol or phallic worshipers. Satapatha Brahmana’s narrative in regards with Asura’s as
being actual progenitors of fire sacrifices and how Devas dispossessed Asuras from it goes as
following:

“1.9.2.34. Now the gods and the Asuras, both of them sprung from Pragâpati, were contending
about this sacrifice, (that is, their) father Pragâpati, the year. 'Ours it (he) shall be! ours it shall
be,' they said.

1.9.2.35-Thereupon, the gods obtained possession of the whole of the sacrifice, and dispossessed
those (Asuras) of it by (giving them) what was the worst part of the sacrifice, to wit, with the
blood of the victim (they dispossessed them) of the animal sacrifice, and with the refuse of the
rice of the haviryagña. 'May they be duly dispossessed of the sacrifice,' they thought for he
indeed is duly dispossessed, who is dispossessed even while obtaining a (worthless) share. He,
on the other hand, who is dispossessed without any share whatever, hopes for a while, and when
it occurs to him, he says, 'What share hast thou given me?' Hence what share the gods set apart
for those (Asuras), that same share he now makes over to them in pouring (the refuse of the rice)
right under the black antelope skin. He thereby casts it into blind darkness, where there is no
(sacrificial) fire. And in the same way he casts the blood of the victim into blind darkness, where
there is no fire; thinking, 'Thou art the Rakshas' share!' For this reason they use not the gore of
the victim (for sacrificial purposes), since it is the Rakshas' share.”50

It also is clear from above that the Asuras were progenitors of the fire sacrifice rites, which is
again confirmed from the following verse of Satapatha Brahmana.
“He said, 'How, then, wilt thou do it?' He then told him this:--At first, indeed, that Yagña
(sacrifice, m.), the Sautrâmanî, was with the Asuras. He went forth towards the gods. He came to
the waters, and the waters welcomed him, whence people welcome a better man when he comes
to them. They said to him, 'We pray thee, come, reverend sir!'” (SB, 12.9.)

Here, we find two facts, one is that the followers of Ahur Mazda and other Asura oriented tribes,
too, conducted sacrificial rituals like of Vedic people, and second is, Vedic people wanted to
boast how better was their rites than of the Asuras. May be that the pre-Zoroaterian Ahura
sacrificial practice was adapted by the Vedic with their own innovations. Since Asura cult had
ancient roots, it is no wonder that the Asuras were treated as elder brothers and progenitors of the
fire sacrifice. Malati Shendge suggests that “It is possible that the Asuras observed certain rites
and devas created certain others on the basis of those of the Asuras.” 51

In a way, from above, another conjecture can emerge which we need to think on. Was this rivalry
between the followers of the Zoroastrian and other Asura oriented faiths of those times alone or
was it also the conflict between Asura and Deva worshipers of Rig Vedic tradition as well?
There cannot be any doubt that the Rig Vedic tradition was Asura oriented in its early stage,
which later went on in a drastically opposite direction of the previous one. Hence, we can safely
state that the Vedics could have gone through the both, external as well as internal conflicts. This
seems plausible because although the epithet Asura was dropped in later times, the deities those
were revered with that epithet, such as Varuna, remained, though in little degraded form, in later
Rig Vedic texts.

However, this is not the issue we need to go in depth here. We have to see whether the roots of
Brahmana mythology belonged to the land where Asura faith was predominant and Vedicism
was a branch of it, embracing Deva faith in later times. The myth that the Asuras and Devas were
sons of the Prajapati and Asuras being elder suggests none other than this.

India, too, had an uninterrupted tradition of Asura culture, but we do not find Asuras conducting
any kind of fire-sacrifices! Chandogya Upanishada clearly states that “….who does not sacrifice,
is contemptuously addressed as one of the Asura race.” Asuras here were rather enemies of the
fire sacrifices and worshipers of Shiva. (Bhagvad Purana, 8.1.17, 11.24.13). Indian Asura
tradition seems to be conducting ancestor worship as well. (Vishnu Purana, 1.5.31-34.). Most of
the Asuras obtained boons from Shiva. There are many stories of Asuras destructing Vedic fire
sacrifices; many are enumerated in Puranas, Ramayana and Mahabharata. For example:
Balakanda (Ramayana) elaborates how Rama protected sacrifices of Vishwamitra from Asuras.

Shiva, in myths, is called ‘VedabAhya’ (outsider to Vedas.) and Smarari (destroyer of sacrifices).
(Vayupurana, chapter 30) F Although later, many attempts were made to assimilate Shiva in Vedic
tradition, by equating him with Rudra, mostly owing to his popularity failed because of the clear
distinction in both, i.e. Rudra was authorieed to receive share of sacrificial oblations, Shiva was
not! (Maitrayani Samhita 2.9.1-2)

However, it was natural for these attempts of later times to fail because the fact remained that
Shiva has been and is traditionally God of the different, pre-Vedic religion of India. The myth
associated with him clearly demarcates the division of the two religions, one being idolatrous,
phallic worship centered and other being fire-centered, worshippers of abstract gods.

In Vedic mythologies, why Shiva’s main task as ‘destroyer’ would have been assigned, the
answer must not surprise us, because it seems clear from the mythologies that he (his followers)
was acclaimed as the destroyer of the sacrifices. As a matter of fact, the phallic form in which he
is worshipped is a symbol of fertility…creation, not destruction, which we must understand. So,
even if his symbol is of creation, he was shrewdly assigned the task of the destroyer! The
distorted mythologies should not misguide us and importantly, Brahmana mythologies in no way
involve or mention Shiva anywhere. This is why; many scholars tend to think Shiva is a Puranic
god and assign date of later times for his emergence. However, the physical proofs found in
Indus civilization speak clearly otherwise.

This indicates how and why Indian mythology differs from the Brahmana’s mythology with
regard to Asuras. Indian Asuras were never conducting fire sacrifices but were mostly
worshippers of Shiva. This is the point where we need to segregate Asura myths of Veda/
Brahmanas and myths of Shiva/Shakti worshippers Asuras of India. Our known ancient religion
and cultural tradition finds roots in Indus-Ghaggar Civilization and not in the Vedic religion,
which was introduced to India in quite later times.

Although, the epithet Asura and Deva was common, almost from India to Greece, the
characteristics of the both were very different, sometimes, drastically opposite or even mixed
together as per the psyche or faiths of those societies. Just similarities between the epithets or
terms in ancient languages cannot become the basis of determining the ethos of various cultures.
Rather, we should be very careful rather than confused when we find superficial similarities in
distinct cultures. With the similarities in the terms/epithets of different civilisations cannot be
afforded to conclude similarities in the cultures.

Danava and Daityas

The way myths associated with Asura in the Vedic literature has Iran origin; the myths
surrounding Danava and Daityas, too, are associated with the same region. In Rig Veda Danu,
(mother of Danavas, Demons) is mentioned in the verse 1.32.9 as mother of Vritra, a demon to
whom Indra had slain. Later, in the mythologies, Danu was depicted as daughter of Daksha
Prajapati. Danu also appears as a river name in Avesta. Rivers Danube, Don, Dnieper etc. has
been attempted to equate with Avestan ‘Danu’ river. Speigel admits that word Danu in Veda and
Avesta, one meaning enemy and the other river. Darmesteter takes Danu (in both Avestan and
Vedic language) for cloud, water, or river.52 Vritra myth is quite ancient that repeatedly appears
in the Rig Veda. Vritra/Danavas could be some ancient tribe residing on the banks of some river
(Danu), to whom Indra (Rig Vedic tribes) defeated. The memory of early times seems to have
proudely preserved in the Rig Vedic mythology.

Daityas is another class of Vedic demons who are considered to be sons of Diti and Kashyapa.
Vanghui Daitya in Avesta is a venerable river (Yast 1.21) which flowed through Arran (modern
Aras, classical Araxes) or mythical Aieryanam Vaeja, birth place of the Zarathustra.
Here, we can surmise that the way Asuras became despicable, Daityas, name designated to the
people/tribe who resided across Daitya river, too, became a hateful name out of enmity and
constant conflicts. Danu in Rig Veda, as we have seen above, is name of water-demon Vritra’s
mother. Since the generic term ‘Danu’ means water or river, Danavas, too, must be a tribe of
ancient times, residing on some river’s banks. Overwhelming mentions of Vritra myth in the Rig
Veda only shows that the enmity between Danavas and early Vedic people has ancient roots. So,
we can correlate Vedic myths in relation with Danava, Daitya and Asura with the people those
delved in the ancient Iran. Projecting perpetual enemy tribes in demonic forms is a human
nature, but, however, we cannot connect those myths with the indigenous mythologies.

It also is clear from all the discussion that the Asuras were the last to join in as demonic class in
Rig Vedic mythology.

Looking at the bitter enmity between Deva and Asuras of Vedic mythology, we can clearly see
the answer to the question why Rig Vedic religion (not people) was forced out to eastern
territories to find new patrons and adherents as western side must have been blocked to the Vedic
disciples by their Ahura worshiper enemies. The reflection of those bitter memories naturally has
been preserved in the form of mythological battles and associated stories in Brahmanas. It seems,
though there are no clear proofs to substantiate this statement, the later events clearly indicate
that the followers of the Vedic religion in those lands were forcibly or willingly been converted
by the Avestic or other Asuric, but powerful, kings, leaving no choice to the faithful adherents
but to escape to the east for survival and preserve the religion. However, by calling Asuras as
elder brothers of Devas, Vedic mythology faithfully preserves the historical fact that the Asura
oriented tradition had been anterior to the Deva.

Which scripture is older?

It always is difficult to conclusively decide on which scripture is older in an absence of a

definitive proof. Even if Avestan and Rig Vedic tradition is analysed, we even cannot state
definitely that whether both the religions emerged in each other’s opposition. Zarathustra
certainly was not founder but reformer of the religion which was ancient but had declined in the
course of the time. From Rig Veda, we get no clue as to whether it too was an attempt to
resurrect some ancient faith in different manner or had it independent origin! Though the Rig
Veda shows its reverence to Asura tradition, at the least in the early times, it does not resemble
with Zoroastrian faith in many respects. Although, some myths and deities are identical in both
the scripts there are many others those either have independent roots or borrowings of basic
elements from elsewhere with further independent developments. However, we will try to sum
up on this issue keeping in mind what we have discussed in this chapter.

To begin with, we are certain now that Rig Vedic seers knew Zarathustra, his patron and enemies
as well. They also knew about his death and how did he die. So safely, we can state that the
Gathas, those are directly attributed to Zarathustra, were contemporary to the early compositions
of Rig Veda, if not predating.
We also safely can say that the whole bulk of the extant Rig Veda, excepting later interpolations,
has been composed in southern Afghanistan in Helmand basin as there seems to be no shift in
geography as the friends and enemies of the Rig Vedic tribes throughout, mostly, remains to be
identifiable belonging to those territories. There seems no movement from India to west or from
west to east as Western and Indian scholars like to believe to build up their theories.

The dialects of both the scriptures (Gatha and Rig Veda) are as similar and distinct as we can
expect from the languages of any adjoining regions. There are certain phonetic and
morphological changes in the language of the Rig Veda which makes it more modern over the
language of Gathas. This is why we find a bulk of similar words in both the scriptures but some
seems to have been used in different, sometimes opposite, senses. Many words sound different
and yet they seem to be clear translations made in later times i.e. words or names may be
different but meaning is same. Though, the language of Rig Veda phonetically and
morphologically has been transformed while final compilation of the Rig Veda, still the
resemblance with the language of Avesta is remarkable. This is because the geography of both
the regions was close enough to have striking affinity in languages as well as mythologies
including names of deities and demons.

We have no traditional records available from other tribes of those regions, thus making it
impossible to understand properly their faiths and ritualistic practices. However, we have hints
from both the scriptures that different faiths prevailed in the vast territory of ancient Iran. Hence,
distributing all the tribes between Zoroastrian and Vedic faith would be illogical as we have seen
Zoroastrian religion was just emerging and had begun its spread through preaching and through
bloodbath, while Rig Vedic religion, too, was at its infancy at that time. We have no conclusive
proof as to what faith others were adhering to except mere guesswork based on the vague
descriptions of the enemies that appears in both the scripts. There were people who did not
sacrifice. There were people those worshipped Sisnadeva, phallic god. The tribal religions, it
clearly seems, conflicted with each other to prove superiority. There were people those
worshipped Maruts and Rudra independently which later became part of Vedic pantheon. This
could have happened either with the mergers of other tribes with Vedic tribes or Vedic tradition
flowed from one to other tribes in course of the time which kept on adding their beloved deities
in Vedic pantheon, maintaining Vedic ritualistic practices unaltered.

Agastya’s Indra-Marut hymns can be taken as a proof to indicate that within seer families, there
were disputes over priorities of the gods to whom sacrificial offerings were to be made. RV
1.165, 1.170 and 1.171hymns of Agastya shows how the struggle between Indra and Maruts
(storm-gods) began over the share of offerings and how Agastya finally conciliated Maruts and
Indra on this issue. It does indicate that the Maruts could be new deities introduced by some seer
belonging to different tribe and faith, but still the share of sacrificial offerings of the Maruts was
not yet fixed. Agastya (Mandarya-Manya) in these hymns plays a diplomatic role to reconciliate
a conflict between the seers those preferred Indra and those who preferred their main, but newly
introduced, deities like Maruts. The priorities of share naturally would differ in such cases. Seers
coming from different traditions would naturally want to offer more to their beloved deities, no
matter whether the established ritualistic rules of the share differed! Arising of the conflicts
under such circumstances would be natural. Here, we find, Agastya successfully could reconcile
the issue. It is clear from the development of Maruts in Rig Vedic tradition that they were
assimilated and later were associated with Rudra, equally fierce deity, as their father.

We can surmise from this that the new deities were being assimilated as the Rig Vedic tradition
because of the seers hailing from different tribal religious traditions. Struggle was inevitable
when such instances occurred; one is well preserved by Agastya hymns. In a way because of
such assimilations, we find a huge pantheon of the Rig Vedic deities, although, many of them
have conflicting characteristics.

Hence, we can conclude that the Vedic tradition of compositions did not take place in a single
tribe or under single patronage. The process must have continued by the seers hailing from
different tribes, originally having different faiths and cultural backgrounds. In the tenth book of
Rig Veda too we find new deities like Laxmi, Shraddha, Tarksha etc. appearing and the
descriptions of deities like Prajapati and Vishvakarma changing. However, though the pantheon
of the deities grew by this process over the time, fire centric sacrificial nature of the Vedic
religion did not change, rather in became more organised and thus complex in the course of time.

Rig Vedic chronology

We find that various scholars have tried to decide the chronological order of compositions of
hymns of Rig Veda. The efforts became necessary because what we have in hand today does not
follow its original chronology, but a version that is edited, rearranged and divided in 10 books
(Mandalas) as per the needs of the later editors. However, the normal agreement is the six family
books (2 to 7) are the oldest core of the Rig Veda whereas other books are considered to be
middle and younger books.

If we look at the Rig Vedic compositions, we will find that every book can again be classified as
old, middle and younger independently, because they, too, are not composed at one go, but
several generations have contributed to them.

Even the hymns are edited to suit the purpose of the editor to bring the final version in most
possible orderly manner. Hence, many hymns are credited to several seers. It also becomes
difficult to determine whether all the verses of the hymns were composed at once or was creation
of different times. We find many Rig Vedic hymns consist of verses without any chronological
order while recording the events, making it difficult to understand its real historical order. A

We also have discussed in this chapter that the composition of the Rig Veda, as evident from
Danastuti, was not accomplished under single patronage. Also, we have discussed how the seer
families belonged to different clans/ tribes and followed different faiths and traditions before
joining the Rig Vedic stream. Although, the Vedic religion and its ritualistic nature remained fire
centric, new deities and mythologies of different sources kept on adding to the bulk of Rig Veda.
Because of this, we can state that the Rig Veda in a way represents its cosmopolitan nature.

However, we do not know for certain, which could be the first seer family that founded the Rig
Vedic faith. We also do not know which the earliest hymn is and who composed it. The Rig
Vedic mythologies about their prominent seers, their supposed family members and descendents
is so much so shrouded with the obscure and inconsistent legends, that we cannot be so sure
whether the lineage of seer families is real or fabricated by the seers of later times to claim their
divine and acclaimed bloodline.

We know the names of the seer/s of the hymns from the Anukramanis, which is quite a late text.
From Anukramanis (Katyayanas being oldest but its assigned date is about 500 BC to 300 BC)
we come to know names of the seers who composed the hymns, its metre and deity or deities to
whom it is addressed. But it is doubtful whether it is historically correct in its totality. G

Rather, such fabrications are not new in the Vedic tradition. The authorships of many scriptures
of later times are attributed to mythical figures to provide them sanctity and authenticity. Hence,
the division of the family books and non-family books, too, may not be as correct as generally
thought about.

From the history of both the religions, we can conclude that, even if we cannot definitely decide
on which scripture is older, however, with some degree of certainty, we can say that both the
traditions are almost contemporaneous.

From accounts of the wars, it may appear that the main enemies of the Zoroastrians were
Turvasas (Turanians) and not Rig Vedic tribe of early times. There certainly are traces of the
sense of rivalry between the Avestan and Vedic tradition, which seems to have encouraged Rig
Vedic seers to record victories of Turvasas over Zarathustra’s patron tribe, no matter whether in
single verses. Turvasas in the later course of the time turned up to be enemies along with Yadus
and others to engage Sudasa, Rig Vedic patron of that time, in the battle to prove him victorious.
However, we have no clue as to what happened to his clan in later course of the time.

From the wars those took place during lifetime of Zarathustra, we have discussed above; we
certainly can state that battle of ten kings took place in later times, could possibly be after couple
of centuries later. In the passage of almost 300 to 500 years, that took to compose the extant Rig
Veda, we cannot expect that the first patron royal family, too, continued its dominance to support
the religion over such vast span on time. From Avesta, we clearly see that after fall of
Vishtaspa’s dynasty, the Avestan tradition was shifted elsewhere by the followers for want of
patrons. Rig Vedic seers, too, from the Danastutis, appear to have receiving patronage and gifts
from other tribes.

Also, we must note here that when a religion spreads elsewhere, it is because of the faithful
preachers. It doesn’t at all mean that the entire populace belonging to that particular religion has
moved deserting their original habitat. We also can clearly see from the history that the people
have abandoned the previous faiths to adopt new ones. Buddhism spread in nearby countries by
this missionary process only. It will be insane to claim that the entire Indian Buddhist population
had migrated to Sri Lanka, Tibet, China and other countries to enforce Buddhism upon them.

Most importantly, many a times, religions do die at the place of its origin but prosper elsewhere!
Buddhism again is a fine example for this. It could not sustain its existence and influence in the
country of its origin for a long time. Rather, it almost had become extinct until Dr BR Ambedkar
resurrected it.

This, too, seems to have happened with Rig Vedic, fire-sacrifice oriented, religion. It could not
survive in the land of its origin but was destined to receive patronage and followers from north
India to begin with.

The mythologies of Brahmana literature mostly are associated with the era of cultural conflicts
between Asuric and Deva faiths when Rig Vedic religion was gradually shaping up in ancient
Iran. Applying these myths in Indian historical or mythical context has already proved fatal. We
need to carefully segregate the Vedic mythological elements from Indian mythology to know
what our original roots were.

Bibliography

1. ‘The Proto-Indo-Aryans’, by T. Burrow, published in Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of

Great Britain & Ireland, 1973, p. 123-40.

2. ‘The Formation of the Aryan Branch of Indo-European.’, By Asko Parpola in ‘Combining

archaeological and linguistic aspects of the past. (World Archaeology: Archaeology and
Language series, 3.)’, edited by Roger Blench and Matthew Spriggs, Pub.: Routledge, 1999,
p. 180-207.  

3. ‘Rigveda and Avesta: The Final Evidence’, by Shrikant Talageri, 2009.

4. ‘Zarathustra and his contemporaries in the Rigveda’, by S. K. Hodivala, Pub.: S. K.

Hodivala,1913, p. 51.

5. ‘The Emergence of the Indo-Iranians: The Indo-Iranian Languages’ by J Harmatta,in

‘History of Civilizations of Central Asia’ (Vol. 1), edited by Ahmad Hasan Dani, Vadim
Mikhaĭlovich Masson, Pub.: UNESCO Publication, p. 368.

6. ‘Indocentrism’, by Michael Witzel in ‘The Indo-Aryan Controversy: Evidence and Inference

in Indian History’, edited by Edwin Bryant and Laurie Patton, Pub.: Routledge, 2004, p.
361,367.
7. ‘Avestan, Iranian, Persian, Pahlavi, Pazand Scripts’, by K. E. Eduljee. (Available online
at http://www.heritageinstitute.com/zoroastrianism/languages/)

8. ‘Ancient India as Described by Megasthanese and Arrian’, by J. W. McGrindle, 1877,

eBook.

9. ‘ZOROASTER: THE NAME’, by Rudiger Schmitt, Originally published on July 2002.

(Available online at http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/zoroaster-i-the-name)

10. The Indian Historical Quarterly (Vol. 5), Issues 1-2, p. 269-70, 1985.

11. ‘Vedic Index of Names and Subjects’ (Vol. 1), by Arthur Anthony Macdonell, Arthur
Berriedale Keith, Pub.: Motilal Banarasidas Publishers Pvt. Ltd., reprint 1995, p. 279.

12. ‘Zarathustra and his contemporaries in the Rigveda’, by S. K. Hodivala, Pub.: S. K.

Hodivala, 1913, p. 1.

13. ‘Indus civilisation, Rigveda, and Hindu culture’, by P. R. Deshmukh, Pub. Saroj Prakasjan,
1982, p. 288-89.

14. ‘Zoroaster: The Prophet of Ancient Iran’, by A. V. Williams Jackson, Pub. The Macmillan
Company for Columbia University Press, 1899, p. 124-132.

15. ‘Encyclopedia of the Literature of Empire’, by Mary Ellen Snodgrass, Pub.: Facts on File,
INC, 2010, p. 20.

16. ‘Zarathustra and his contemporaries in the Rigveda’, by S. K. Hodivala, Pub.: S. K.

Hodivala, 1913, p. 12.

17. ‘Rigveda : A Historical Analysis’, by Shrikant Talageri, Aditya Prakashan, 2000, see chapter
6, sub-chapter ‘The Historical Identity of Iranians’.

18. ‘Zarathustra and his contemporaries in the Rigveda’, by S. K. Hodivala, Pub.: S. K.

Hodivala, 1913, p. 15.

19. ‘Zand-Akasih, Iranian or Greater Bundahisn’, Tr. by Behramgore Tehmuras Anklesaria,

Pub.: Rahnumae Mazdayasnan Sabha, 1956, p. 255.

20. ‘Zarathustra and his contemporaries in the Rigveda’, by S. K. Hodivala, Pub.: S. K.

Hodivala, 1913, p. 16.

21. Ibid, p. 14.

22. ‘ARJASP’, by A. Tafazzoli, originally published December 1986. (Available online at
http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/arjasp)

23. ‘Zarathustra and his contemporaries in the Rigveda’, by S. K. Hodivala, Pub.: S. K.

Hodivala, 1913, p. 16.

24. ‘Aban yast’, translated by James Darmesteter, Pub. Sacred Books of the East, American
Edition, 1898.

25. ‘Rigveda: A Historical Analysis’, by Shrikant Talageri, Aditya Prakashan, 2000, see chapter
6, sub-chapter ‘The Historical Identity of Iranians’.

26. ‘Vedic Index of Names and Subjects’ (Vol. 1), by Arthur Anthony Macdonell, Arthur
Berriedale Keith, Pub.: Motilal Banarasidas Publishers Pvt. Ltd., reprint 1995, p. 310.

27. ‘Vedic Mythology’, by Nagendra Kr Singh, Pub.: APH Publishing Corporation, 1997, p. 1.

28. Ibid, p. 141.

29. ‘The Vedic Priests of the Fire-cult’, by V. G. Rahurkar, Pub.: Viveka Publications, 1982, p.
59.

30. ‘The Broken World of sacrifices: An essay in Ancient Indian Ritual’, by J. C. Heesterman,
Pub.: University of Chicago Press, 1993, p. 143.

31. ‘Kalatatvakosa: A Lexicon of Fundamental Concepts of the Indian Arts’ (Vol. 3), edited by
Bettina Bäumer, Kapila Vatsyayan, Pub.: Indira Gandhi National Center for Arts, New
Delhi, 1996, p. 202.

32. ‘The Broken World of sacrifices: An essay in Ancient Indian Ritual’ by J. C. Heesterman,
Pub.: University of Chicago Press, 1993, p. 143-44.

33. ‘Bharatiya Sanskrutikosha’ (Vol. 1), edited by Pt. Mahadevshastri Joshi, Pub.: Bharatiya
Sanskruti Koshamandala, 1997, p. 119.

34. Ibid.

35. ‘Zarathustra and his Contemporaries in the Rig Veda’, by S. K. Hodivala, Pub.: S. K.
Hodivala, 1913, p. 21-22.

36. ‘Rigveda: A Historical Analysis’, by Shrikant Talageri, Aditya Prakashan, 2000, see chapter
5.
37. ‘The Religion of Ancient Iran’, by J. Duchesne Guillemin in ‘Historia Religionum, Volume 1,
Religions of the Past’, edited by Claas Jouco Bleeker, Geo Widengren, Pub.: E.J. Brill, 1969,
p. 335

38. ‘Encyclopaedia of Oriental Philosophy and Religion’ (Vol. 6), ‘Zoroastrianism’, edited by A.
P. Mishra, Nagendra Kr Singh, Pub.” Global Vision Publishing House, 2007, p. 17.

39. ‘Encyclopaedia of Vedic Philosophy (Volume 5), edited by Subodh Kapoor, Pub.: Cosmo
Publications, 2002, p. 1239-40.

40. ‘Bharatiya Sanskrutikosha’ (Vol. 6), edited by Pt. Mahadevshastri Joshi, Pub.: Bharatiya
Sanskruti Koshamandala, 1998, p. 593.

41. ‘Vedic Index of Names and Subjects’ (Vol. 1), by Arthur Anthony Macdonell, Arthur
Berriedale Keith, Pub.: Motilal Banarasidas Publishers Pvt. Ltd., reprint 1995, p. 22.

42. ‘Zarathustra and his Contemporaries in the Rig Veda’, by S. K. Hodivala, Pub.: S. K.
Hodivala, 1913, p. 16-18.

43. ‘Rigveda: A Historical Analysis’, by Shrikant Talageri, Aditya Prakashan, 2000, see chapter
6.

44. ‘The Civilized Demons: The Harappans in Rigveda’, by Malati J. Shendge, Pub.: Abhinav
Publications, 1977, p. 75.

45. ‘Aryans in the Rigveda’, by Franciscus Bernardus Jacobus Kuiper, Pub.: Rodopi, 1991, p.
17-18.

46. ‘Rigveda: A Historical Analysis’, by Shrikant Talageri, Pub.: Aditya Prakashan, 2000, see
chapter 5, subtitle ‘The RSis and Priestly families in the Rigveda’.

47. ‘Bharatiya Sanskrutikosha’ (Vol. 1), edited by Pt. Mahadevshastri Joshi, Pub.: Bharatiya
Sanskruti Koshamandala, 1997, p. 57.

48. ‘The Rigveda: The Earliest Religious Poetry of India’ (Vol. 1), by Stephanie W. Jamison and
Joel P. Brereton, Pub.: Oxford University Press, 2014, p. 360.

49. ‘Aryans in the Rigveda’, by Franciscus Bernardus Jacobus Kuiper, Pub.: Rodopi, 1991, p.
18-19.

50. ‘Satapatha Brahmana’, tras. By Julius Eggeling [1882]. (Available online at

http://sacred-texts.com/hin/sbr/index.htm)

51. ‘The Civilized Demons: The Harappans in Rigveda’, by Malati J. Shendge, Pub.: Abhinav
Publications, 1977, p. 94.
52. ‘Vedic Hymns’, by F. Max Muller, Psychology Press, Reprint 2001, p. 116.

Notes:

A. While criticising Talageri’s book, ‘The Rigveda. A historical analysis’, (Aditya

Prakashan 2000), Michael Witzel observes about Rig Veda, “….Incidentally, similar
arrangements are also seen in the Pali canon of early Buddhist texts, and elsewhere in
Indian texts. Analogous principles are also found in the Zoroaster's Gathas, pointing to
formal links between Vedic and Avestan traditions that invite further investigation. Any
deviation from this strict numerical arrangement has to be explained. The reason, as
demonstrated again by Oldenberg, is that various hymns or sections of hymns have at
later points been interpolated into the text. This is found especially often in hymns of
unusual length: small individual collections of 3 verses (TRcas) or 2 verses (Pragathas)
were added to certain hymns or were combined into a new hymn during the final
standard RV redaction. This was carried out by Śakalya in the late Brahmana period --
in other words, shortly before the time of the Buddha (c. 500/400 BCE). All such
additions result in hymns that are too long and deviate from the strict pattern. Later on,
after Śakalya, more hymns, such as the Śrīsūkta, were added to the text, some of them
clearly reflecting medieval ideas. They were gathered together in the Kashmir Khila
collection -- and always stand out insofar as they are not found in Śakalya's Padapaéha
and reflect post-Rgvedic grammar and contents.” Witzel further provides the five
stages through which we have the present redaction of the Rig Veda. We will see in the
next chapter that the final redaction of the Rig Veda in present form must be even later
that what Witzel thinks. (The Incredible Wanderlust of the Rgvedic Tribes Exposed by
S.Talageri’, p. 6 – Available online at
http://www.ejvs.laurasianacademy.com/ejvs0702/ejvs0702article.pdf

B. Yadus, mentioned always together with Turvasas and sometimes also with the Parsus,
had made some scholars like Weber to think that it was an evidence of continual close
relations between India and Iran. Macdonell, however, states that, “This is perfectly
possible, but the evidence for it is rather slight.” We have seen how it would be
impossible to consider Yadus of Rig Veda with the later famous clan of India for the
geographies they have been mentioned in, does not allow to connect them with India.
Rather in Rig Veda, Yadus appear to be a subordinate tribe aligned with Turvasas.
Avesta does not mention this tribe. No Yadu chieftain finds mention in Rig Veda, though
Rig Vedic seers seem to have receiving gifts from them. Origin of Mathura’s Yadavas
must be found elsewhere, Rig Veda is not the right place. (See “Vedic Index of Names
and Subjects”, Volume 1, By Arthur Anthony Macdonell, Arthur Berriedale Keith,
Pub.: Motilal Banarasidas Publishers Pvt. Ltd., reprint 1995, page 279.

C. Atharva Veda was traditionally considered as ‘impure’ because it was of no use in fire
sacrifices. Besides, it is commonly considered by the Indian scholars that the
composition of this Veda is modern as compared with Rig Veda. However, Tarkateertha
Laxmanshastri Joshi suggests that some hymns of this Veda could belong to pre-Rig
Vedic times. Atharva Veda’s religion, not associated with fire rituals and distinct as this
 Veda speaks of the spirituality and Brahma Vidya, which elements are otherwise absent
from Rig Veda. The Rig Vedic gods like Indra, Agni are demoted in this Veda, whose
only task here remains is to destroy Rakshasas and fiends. Also overall collection of
hymns of this Veda is arbitrary; artificial, follows no subject-wise system the way Rig
Veda follows. Assigning this work to Atharva, Angirasa and Bhrigu may not be correct
for it does not fit into Rig Vedic character of the compositions of all these three seer
clans. For more information, see, Bharatiya Sanskrutikosha (Vol. 1), edited by Pt.
Mahadevshastri Joshi, Bharatiya Sanskruti Koshamandala, 1997, p. 119-23.

D. Though the etymology of Angirasa is related with fire, it appears from the Gopatha
Brahmana (Only Brahmana scripture associated with Atharva Veda) that the term
‘Angirasa’ evolved from ‘Anga-rasa’, which means he who born from sweat of Brahma.
This etymology does not match with the fire origin of Angirasa.

E. I especially use the term ‘Vedic Tribe’, not Puru or Bharata or Tritsu in particular
because it clearly appears the from Rig Vedic accounts that the composition of the Rig
Veda did not complete in the so-called Aryan society or under sole patronage of the
hypothetical Puru tribe or its hypothetical offshoot tribes. There was no ‘Aryan’ society
as such. Puru, Bharata or Tritsu tribe does not show its prolonged continuation of reign
in any region for that matter. The seer families do not show any way that they belonged
to any single tribe and uniformly, but over generations, composed Rig Veda. It can be
assumed that the many seers were contemporary. However, it is clear from Rig Veda
itself that they belonged to different locations and tribes. We can see that the Bhrigus
and Vishvamitra, though might not have physically participated in the famous battle of
ten kings, certainly were not part of the Sudasa’s tribe. We find, in this battle, Purus too
had fought against Sudasa. There can be listed many instances like this, those only
makes it clear that the Rig Vedic compositions were multi-centered and among,
sometimes, rival tribes and simultaneous. It seems that in later course, the extant
corpus of the Rig Veda was gathered and rearranged and this is why we can find even
compositions of the rival seer families belonging to different clans too are incorporated
in the Rig Veda. What I want to suggest here the work of the Rig Veda is not the
product of single homogeneous society and culture. It shows that in instance of Kanvas,
ethnicities too differed. In all, Rig Veda is not at all propriety of a single tribe, but
product of several tribes and of different times. The Danastuti hymns too are important
indicator of this fact. Traditionally attributing the works of Rig Veda to hypothetical
Bharata or Puru clan or their hypothetical offshoots may not be correct. Hence, from
“Vedic tribe/s” we are not indicating a single society, which was responsible for this
monumental work, but the tribe/s those kept on patronizing from time to time the Rig
Vedic compositions and religion.

F. The story that Vayupurana narrates, makes it clear that the Shiva was not part of Vedic
sacrificial rituals ever. The dialogue between Shiva and his consort Uma in Vayupurana
goes like this. Uma asks, “Why have you not gone to attend sacrifice being conducted by
Daksha?” Shiva replies, “Devas have pre-arranged this that I shall not get share of the
offerings in sacrifices.” (Vayupurana: Chapter 30.111-13) Shiva emitted fire from his
mouth, created Veerbhadra out of it and commanded him to destroy the sacrifice of
 Daksha. The narrative clearly explains through this myth a fact that the Shiva was not
part of the Vedic faith and hence there was no question of making any offerings to him
during sacrifices.

G. Michael Witzel opines on ‘The Anukramanis’, while criticizing Talageri’s book, ‘The
Rigveda. A historical analysis’, (Aditya Prakashan 2000), “As suggested earlier, in his
‘analysis’ of the RV, Talageri depends heavily on the Anukramanis -- late- and post-
Vedic lists of RV poets (many of them clearly fictional), deities, and meters. These lists
are closely related to other later and traditional sources, including the Puranas……
Talageri not only seems oblivious of these facts, but is unaware as well that competing
versions of the AnukramaÍīs exist. Indeed, he makes the startling claim at the beginning
of his book (p. 7) that “the Anukramanis were part and parcel of the Rigvedic text from
the most ancient times" -- claiming further that these lists must lie at the grounds of any
serious analysis of the text. Amateurish errors like this are compounded by the fact that
the version of these lists that Talageri (unknowingly) depends on -- an early medieval
redaction of late-Vedic Katyayana's Sarvånukramani.” (‘The Incredible Wanderlust of
the Rgvedic Tribes Exposed by S.Talageri”, p. 2. Available online at
http://www.ejvs.laurasianacademy.com/ejvs0702/ejvs0702article.pdf)
 CHAPTER 6

How Rig Vedic religion spread in India?

“Something of this fear of the horse and of the thundering chariot, the ‘tank’ of the 2nd
millennium BC is transparent in the famous horse 'Dadhikra' of the Puru king Trasadasya
("Tremble enemy" in RV 4.38.8) ........The first appearance of thundering chariots must have
stricken the local population with terror similar to that experienced by the Aztecs and the Incas
upon the arrival of the iron-clad, horse riding Spaniards.” 1
Thus wrote Witzel to support the Aryan invasion. Now we have seen that there were no such
happenings at all! There were no waves of migrating Indo-Aryans to overpopulate the already
populated North India to enforce their culture and dialects on the already far advanced natives,
who had their own dialects to communicate, own religion to follow, own script and had
established a vast trade network covering half of the known world! There was no Aryanisation of
north India and displacement of Dravidians to south. Neither were there outgoing waves of
indigenous Vedics to spread out their dialect and culture to the west, as Vedicist scholars like to
believe. We have discussed how both these theories are outcome of supremacist notions, which
some scholars still like to nourish though they have no proof to substantiate them.

There is no evidence that can remotely indicate Aryan or PIE invasion/migration in India. There
is also not even the slightest proof to indicate indigenous Aryans migrating to the west.

However, the fact remains that the Vedic religion found some space in North Indian regions, to
begin with, to establish and prosper. No mass migration of Vedic Aryan tribes was required to
cause such effect. Rather, from mythologies, it clearly emerges that the Vedic religion came to
India very peacefully, causing no nuisance, carried by handful of faithful disciples or
descendants of the extant seer families.

Having discussed this, let us turn to the present issue under discussion, how, in absence of
migrations from either direction, Rig Vedic religion entered and spread in India?

The process

We have seen that mass-migrations are not necessary for the spread of the religion. Moreover,
there are many instances of religions becoming extinct in the region of their origin but
prospering elsewhere. We are not sure whether the religion was existent in the Helmand valley or
nearby regions when the Vedic religion was introduced to India. Nonetheless, we know from Rig
Veda, the volatile and constant war-like situations erupting all the time in those regions. The
possibility that some or other faith had overpowered the Vedic society of those times cannot be
ruled out. Or else, the people might have shifted faith from Vedic to other. After Sudasa’s
victory over other ten powerful tribes, the vanquished tribes could have regained power and
avenged the Vedic society. Any situation could have prevailed. However, the fact remains that
the religion lost ground in the area of its origin.

As we have discussed in the earlier chapter that after the death of Kavi Vishtaspa, Zoroastrians,
too, had great difficulty in finding new patrons. So much, that they started using abusive phrases
for Kavis (Royal heads) of those times. They too had to find patrons out of the Bactria. After the
great victory in the battle of ten kings, though not recorded, we can safely guess that his fame
must have spread along with his religion, thus becoming a prominent sect in those regions. We
find from the religious history that the ambitious rival sect of those times was Avesatn
(Mazdayasni). The decline of the Vedic religion, thus, can be connected with the rapid and
aggressive spread of Avestan faith in later times. We see how the contemporary tribes like
Parthians, Persians, Balochis, Turanians etc., those find mention in Rig Veda, had embraced to
the Zoroastrian faith in later times.The myths of vicious Asuras could have been emerged in such
time when the Vedics faced drastic opposition or even persecution. Such circumstances only
could have forced the extant faithful disciples to move away to find refuge.

However, before the Avestan faith gradually become prominent, we find Vedic people too were
trying to spread their religion in those regions. We have discussed that the works of Brahmanas
must have been composed, though in rudimentary form, to customise the process of early fire
sacrifices while Rig Veda was still being composed. No religion is formed to limit it to own
tribe. They, too, were trying to convert others to their fold. A verse of Rig Veda clearly states
“Oh Vajri, though hast made Aryas of Dasas” (RV10.49.3). Though they were hateful of the
Dasas, the Vedic people did not seem to reject those who wanted to become members of their
religion.

We have seen the many seer families, which participated in Rig Vedic compositions, belonged to
different tribes. They certainly did not belong to the Vedic faith before they embraced it. We
have also seen the other tribal kings and people, such as Persians, Parthians and Panis like Bubu
giving donations to the Vedic seers. Records of these donations we find in Danastutis.

For example, from a King Rnancaya of the Rusama tribe, Seer Babhru Atri receives 4,000 cattle
as a gift at the end of, probably, a grand Pravargya yagna. (RV 5.30.12-15) Similarly, Samvarana
Prajapatya recounts receiving gifts from several kings, including the renowned Trasadasyu. (RV
5.033.08-10) Prabhuvasu Angiras seems to have received two dark red horses together with 300
cattle from a young person named Srutaratha. (RV 5.036.06) It is not clear whether Srutaratha
was a king, prince or merely a rich person. Although, Trasadasyu, has been mentioned in Rig
Veda several times, his tribal identity, whether he was Iksvaku, Bharata or Puru, is not clear.
Similarly, the Rusama tribe remains unidentified. However, what these verses clearly show is
that the Rig Vedic seers were receiving donations from other tribal kings and magnates either for
spreading the religion after getting converted them to the Vedicism or in the form of the fees in
return of the sacrifices performed for them if these donors were already members of the Vedic
religion.

This also means that the rise of Vedic religion and its subsequent spread or survival in the lands
of the origin of the Vedics was not because of single royal patronages. Rather, there had been
many patrons from the surrounding regions. This would also mean that crediting hypothetical
Puru or Bharata tribe as only patron of the Vedic religion is not correct. King Sudasa belonged to
Tritsu tribe, not hypothetical Bharatas or Purus, as we have seen in earlier chapters.

Looking at the vast span of time, i.e. 300 to 500 years, taken to accomplish the composition of
Rig Veda, we cannot expect any dynasty to continue its reign unobtrusively for such a long
period looking at the volatile political circumstances. Some such circumstances reflect in the Rig
Veda itself.

Hence, most possibly, during some time after decline of Sudasa’s Tritsu clan, Vedic tradition, too,
would have suffered from the loss of patrons, rapid rise of Avestan religion being a main reason
for such loss. The religious conflicts to establish supremacy over each other could also have
resulted in extinction of some independent, but small cults, cherished by different tribes of that
region. Vedics were most probably one of such faiths, as we do not find trace of its continuity in
the lands of its origin. Rather, we have indicative proof to show that how faithful disciples
marched to India to keep their religion alive.

Who were they?

We can trace from the Vedic mythology that the bitterness between Devas and Asuras (i.e. Deva
followers and Asura followers after the shift of Vedic priority from Asura to Deva) had reached
to the extreme. Asuras had become invincible enemies of Devas. How Devas (Vedics) despised
Asuras is evident from a myth from Satapatha Brahmana. It states, ‘Asuras were created from
Prajapati’s digestive breath.’ Anyway, the enmity between Vedics and Asura followers must have
been continued for a longer time and must have fought many battles apart from those mentioned
in the Rig Veda. Aitareya Brahmana mentions many defeats of Devas at the hands of Asuras and
how Devas finally found their way to the victory. (AB 1.14) As mythologies go in every religion,
the final victory is always depicted of those to whom the particular societies revere. It does not
necessarily describe the reality. We have seen that the Asuras, Daityas and Danavas, who are
depicted in demonic forms, were, in reality, rival tribes of real people with whom the Vedic
fought constantly. The fact must be that the Devas, i.e. Vedics were defeated finally in the land of
their origin. Otherwise, there would not be any need for them to move the religious seat from one
land to other.

In the first chapter of Satapatha Brahmana, which is oldest of all, a proof is faithfully preserved
that indicates how the Vedics found their first camp in North India. The myth goes: Videgh
Mathava, residing on the banks of the Saraswati river, accompanied by his family priest
Goutama Rahugana and Agni, symbol of Vedic culture, marched onwards. Through crossing the
northern mountains (Uttaragiri), drying the rivers and burning the forests, he reached the
Sadanira river. The legend tells that when Videgh Mathava asked Agni, where he should make
his abode, the Agni told him to reside to the east of the river. (SB 1.4.1, 14-17)

The myth, preserved by Brahmana, clearly indicates that from the banks of Saraswati a group of
the Vedic people had marched towards a river to find refuge. The group marched through the
northern mountains, those could only be Hindukush and rivers flowing through that region, to
reach the uninhibited place to settle. A

Modern scholars normally try to equate this river with Gandaki that flows from Nepal through
India, finally feeding Ganga. However, from the Mahabharata’s accounts on this river, it could
not be Gandaki but some other river flowing through Gandaki and Sarayu. Amarasinha of Amara
Kosha asserts Sadanira to be synonym of Karatoya River, flowing through north of Bengal.
Anyway, Sadanira means ‘abounding in water’, which can be applied to any river that is full of
abundant water. The myth also indicates that the area across the river was swampy and
inhabitable. 2

Thus, the invasionist scholars of those times from this myth had considered Aryan expansion
from west to the east, occupying the lands and regions towards Gandaki River of Bihar (or
Bengal), is not tenable. Here, we cannot overlook the archaeological evidence, which indicates
that no new agricultural civilisation had arrived after 7,000 BC in the Gangetic plains. Jhusi site,
at the confluence of Ganga-Yamuna, based on the radio-carbon dates, helps estimate existence of
the Neolithic culture in 6th-7th millienim BC.3 Fuller suspects that the broad patterns of linguistic
diversity and distribution were established in the Neolithic/Chalcolithic with the diffusion of
agriculture and some dispersals of population.4 Also, there are established links between Harappa
and Gangetic culture, in form of the similarities in making of the beads and pottery.5 In short, the
region of Gangetic plains was quite populated from ancient times. The entry period of Vedic
religion in India does not go back beyond 1,000 BC. Hence, attempting to identify Gandaki with
Sadanira is incorrect, since by this time the political systems were already established in these
regions, as evidenced by Brahmanas themselves!

The fact remains that Videgha Mathava, from the Saraswati river, along with Vedic followers
had come to India along with ‘Agni’ (sacred fire practices and Vedas) to find a place to
permanently settle. Since Ghaggar is not Saraswati as some scholars like to believe, he must
have travelled from Helmand to Sadanira, which might have been a name temporarily given to
some unknown river. Had it been a travel from Hemand to Gandaki, the distance would have
been too far to traverse through the populated and advanced settlements. This also makes it
impossible to identify the Sadanira River as Gandaki.

Sadanira could be either the tributaries to Indus or some independent river in north-west India of
those times. The myth does not suggest that the travel of Vedic people till Sadanira was a
product of their military conquests. Indeed, it suggests peaceful migration of the Vedic folks.
The burning of forests and drying up of rivers only suggests allegorically that they crossed many
forests and rivers, avoiding populated areas, to find a place for settlement. They found it across
Sadanira, unpopulated because it was marshy and swampy, cleared the dense forests about it to
make the place habitable without inviting trouble or opposition from the already settled
population in fertile lands. Thus, we can see that the entry of the Vedic adherents to India was
not a celebration of any kind.

Satapatha Brahmana mentions the regions and people of Gandhara, Sal, Kekay, Kuru, Panchala,
Kosala, Videha and Srinjaya, those, except Gandhara, never appear in the bulk of Rig Veda.6
This indicates that the Vedic people had come to know the interior and political regions of North
India during the post-Vedic era only. Absence of these regions in Rig Veda does not suggest
otherwise. While enumeration different political regions of north India, Satapatha Brahmana is
explicit enough to tell us that the regions were already populated and already had their political
systems in place. This also clearly suggests us that the earlier geography of the Rig Veda had
completely changed! These kingdoms were not established by the Vedic people. They already
existed from pre-historic times. What we can derive is some local kings patronised Vedic
followers in later times.
The myth indicates the travel of Vedic tradition to India by handful of submissive people. It also
tells us how they found an uninhibited, uncultivated marshy region on the bank of a river where
they finally settled. We can surmise from the faithfully preserved myth that this could have been
the first seat of Vedic religion somewhere in north India from where the later compositions and
compilations of Vedic literature began.

Most of the scholars have taken this myth as basis for suggestion of eastward migration of the
Aryans from Saraswati river. What they tend to suggest that the after settling in Punjab, banks of
the Saraswati (Ghaggar), they ventured their advance towards Gandaki, which was led by
Videgh Mathava. However, we have seen in the second chapter that Saraswati of Rig Veda was
not at all situated in India. Hence, we have no alternative but to consider Vedic peoples entry in
India from Helmand of southern Afghanistan. They found unpopulated, uncultivated marshy
lands to settle temporarily and from there onwards, they rejuvenated their religion in the foreign
lands! After settling down here, to promote the religion, it required to be institutionalised and
such attempts were made.

VEDA VYASA

The Vedic tradition attributes the credit of collecting and dividing the extant Vedas in four books
to Veda Vyasa, alternatively called as Krishna Dvaipayana Vyasa.

According to Vishnu Purana, (chapter 4) the Veda, which was first revealed by God to the seers,
consisted of 100, 000 verses and had four divisions. The Vedas fell in obscurity later in course of
the time and not only that these divisions were mixed up, but many portions of the Vedas were
also lost. Hence, in the beginning of the Dvapara age, Krishna Dvaipayana initiated the Vedic
study and classified the extant work accordingly to the four divisions. From his selected four
principal disciples, he gave Rig Veda to Paila, Yajur Veda to Vaisampayana, Sama to Jaimini and
Atharva Veda to Sumanta.

The alternative myth is preserved by Brihadaranyakopanisada, which states Rig Veda originally
consisted 12,000 verses, Yajur Veda 8000 verses and Sama Veda 4000 and this collection was
made by Prajapati.7 Going by even this myth, we do not find these much verses in all the three
Vedas. What we can deduce is whatever number of verses the original Vedas consisted of, most
part of it was lost. Some people collected the extant texts from many sources, compiled and
rearranged them subject wise. Indian tradition and even Indian religious scholars believe the
above myths for there is no other explanation as to how the present redactions/schools of Vedas
came into the existence. However, it is clear from the above myth of Vyasa that it has been
interpolated in the later times with inclusion of the Atharva Veda in the list of the Vedas, which
Purusha Sukta does not!

Indeed, the above myth agrees that the original Veda was quite large, as large as consisting of
100,000 (or 24000) verses. We can see, if mythical elements and exaggerations are removed
from the legend, it is telling a fact that Vedas had become obscure, losing its eminence in society
in which it prevailed, which forced Veda Vyasa (or Prajapati) to collect whatever was available
of it from different sources to rearrange and classify in the four books. Hence, Talageri’s and
other scholars’ classification of the Mandalas as oldest, older, middle and younger, and outlining
the Vedic history accordingly may not be exactly correct.

The myth, if believed, suggests that the collection and division of Vedas by Veda Vyasa must
have been done before the final version of the Satapatha Brahmana. Satapatha Brahmana, which
is said to be the oldest Brahmana, is traditionally affiliated with Shukla Yajurveda and if
Yajurveda was already classified by Vyasa, the much part of the Satapatha Brahmana could be
younger to the date of such classification.

The scholars agree that the credit of compiling Atharva Veda cannot be given to Vyasa because
there were only three Vedas.8 Purushasukta too does not mention Atharva Veda. We can safely
say that the addition of the Atharva Veda in the myth is an interpolation of the later times.

Division of the three Vedas is also peculiar. Samaveda is nothing but a reduced version of Rig
Veda, having no distinctive lessons of its own. That way it cannot be called as independent
composition, but careful selection of the Rig Vedic verses to sing during rituals. Yajurveda also is
a compilation of certain Rig Vedic verses coupled with ritualistic formulas.

Atharva Veda is book of the spells which clearly stands apart from the Vedic liturgical tradition,
though, it contains 1/7 portion of Rig Veda. Atharva Veda could have been exalted to the position
when a need arose to provide all-inclusive but distinct ritualistic and philosophical character to
the Vedic religion.

Vyasa is also credited to be the writer of Mahabharata and Puranas. However, this cannot be the
case. If Vyasa is associated with Mahabharata at all, he was the author of 8,800 stanzas that used
to be called as ‘Jaya’, not the 100, 000 stanzas epic ‘Mahabharata’. The later interpolations,
additions by Sauti and Janamejaya have made present Mahabharata consisting of almost about
100,000 stanzas. The credit of all Puranas, too, is traditionally attributed to Vyasa, which cannot
be the case in the reality. To provide sanctity to the works of the known or unknown authors of
the past, Indian tradition has been applying such tactics long since. This would even apply to the
few of seers of Rig Veda. This would also mean that the original task of the division of the Vedas
was accomplished by some ancient person/s to whom later tradition had forgotten thus gave
credit to mythical Vyasa. In Vishnu Purana, the phrase applied is ‘former Vyasas’, which may
actually mean that the Vyasa was an institution rather than a person. Griffith, too, suggests that
some institution to preserve and spread out Vedas must have been established under Kuru
patronage.

Whether Kurus or not, the early institution to collect, rearrange and classify must have been
formed under some patronage. The necessity must have arisen only because in the lands of its
origin, various seer families must have been scattered or went in hiding, because of the onslaught
of enemy. Though Videth Mathava could find passage to India, the need to collect extant parts
must have arisen, because, we have seen that Videth Mathava could not possibly carry entire
Veda with him. After settling in northern part of the sub-continent, some immigrant disciples
must have ventured back to find the family compositions and safely brought them or the
compositions preserved by them back. In all possibility they could not have gathered the entire
compositions. Whatever they could gather was compiled, edited and classified according to the
subject. In later course, the task seems to have attributed to Veda Vyasa, a mythical personality.
The present Vedas are an incomplete version for most of the part, it clearly seems, was lost
because of the volatile circumstances and could not be retrieved.

We are aware that Avesta too met with similar fate as three quarters of the corpus have been lost
following Alexander’s conquest. Later, Parsi refugees, in mid-seventh to early tenth century, who
had to abandon their land to escape from fanatical Muslim invaders in order to preserve their
ancient faith too had hardly any recollection of their original entry in India. “Quesse-Ye-Sanjan”,
though oldest extant account of the event, written by priest Bahman Sanjana in 1599 CE, the
story contains no date or reliable account of the migration. Still there is debate whether the early
Parsi migrants came to India by land or sea rout. The case with the religious scripts, always has
been, they have not been careful in recording the historical accounts. We need to search the
history from the mythological legends composed in typical forms!9 Back we go in the history,
obscure the evidences become. However, Videgh Mathava legend clearly indicates escape of
Vedic people to India under some tragic circumstances.

Apart from the myths associated with Vyasa and his being credited with phenomenal works, the
myth of Videgh Mathava and division of the Vedas suggest us the following:

1. Videgh Mathava, in all probability, could not have brought the whole bulk of the Vedas those
were composed by several seer families through the period of several centuries, along with him.
He could bring with him only what his family had preserved. Later some disciples would
have travelled back to locate existing heirs of the seer families to gather whatever was left
with them. They needed to be rearranged and classified accordingly, bridging few anomalies or
missing links by interpolations. The painstaking task must have been carried out by some
institution to which tradition identifies with Veda Vyasa.

2. Who were the first patrons of the Vedic religion in India is uncertain, though Ghriffith suggests
the Kuru’s could be the first. Let us not forget here that the Kurus or Purus of Kuru dynasty have
no relation whatsoever with the Vedic Purus, as we have seen in the earlier chapters.

3. The Brahmanas give account of various north Indian political divisions. Except Gandhara, all
others are completely absent in Rig Veda. This clearly indicates the shift in geography.

4. The myth of Videgh Mathava does not indicate movement of entire Vedic population from
Helmad region to India. The fact must be noted that all tribes living in the adjoining regions of
the Helmand and north-western India did not ever vacate their homelands despite many political
and religious turmoils. Rather, their continuity with their ethnic/tribal/linguistic identities of the
Rig Vedic time still can be easily observed, such of the Pakhtuns, Balochies, Parthians, Persians,
Turanians etc. Similarly, the people belonging to the Vedic tribes, after decline of their traditional
religion, must have clung to some other politically powerful faith and continued to live in the
same region where they dwelt from ancient times. Since there is no evidence of mass exodus of
any tribe to India, this clearly underlines the fact that the Vedic tradition had travelled to India
with the faithful people like mythical Videgh Mathava and his associates/priests. This incident
must have taken place not only for survival, but also to preserve the Vedic tradition. They found
their first abode besides the banks of the Sadanira river from where it later branched out in form
of the various schools.

Schools of Rig Veda: We have seen above that the Veda Vyasa (or some institution under Kuru
patronage as suggested by Griffith, rearranged the bulk of the available Vedas in four parts and
taught each part to his four disciples. After accomplishing such phenomenal task, to propagate
the religion, a system was required. To achieve this, early Vedics formed the different schools.
The myths inform us as following:

Paila was taught Rig Veda who again created two branches of it, teaching one to Bashkala and
other to Indrapramati. From Indrapramati, it was serially received by Satyashrava, Satyahita and
Satyashrava. (Bhagvat and Brahmand Purana) Further, Rig Veda branched out to 21 schools, as
Patanjali in Mahabhashya notes. However, actually there were 27 schools of Rig Veda. Today, an
edition of only Sakala branch is extant in its original pure form.10

Michael Witzel says, “The RV has been transmitted in one recension (the śākhā of Śākalya)
while others (such as the Bāṣkala text) have been lost or are only rumored about so far.”11

However, Shaunaka is credited for uniting Shakala and Bashkala schools together, but the fact is
Shakala and Bashkala recensions are still extant independently and are preserved with BORI,
Pune. Difference between both is Bashkala recension contains Khilani Suktas, which Shakala
does not have.

Considering the present legend, which clearly suggests, the first preachers of the Vedic religion
were carefully selected from the available pupils and were asked to establish different Vedic
schools. Had Vedic tradition not originated at this point and had already been established, there
was no necessity to create different schools to propagate Vedicism! Rather, this process shows
how carefully, after compiling, editing and dividing the extant Vedic texts, efforts were made to
select missioneries to propagate the religion.

However, the task could not have been that easy to establish Vedic tradition in foreign lands with
break up with the original linguistic tradition, thus also necessitating need of the people to
interpret the Vedas as well.

Ram Gopal states, “It shows that, as no uninterrupted reliable tradition of Vedic
interpretation was handed down along with the Vedic verses, the inheritors of these texts began
to advance their own conjectures with regard to the scene of Vedas. Therefore, in absence of an
authentic tradition of Vedic interpretation the tendency to surmises and read pre-conceived
notions into the Veda led to the emergence of different schools of Vedic Interpretation.”12
(Emphasis mine)

We can surmise from opinions of scholars and myths that there were about 27 schools, which
could have been spread in North India at different centres and in different times to propagate the
Vedas and its religion. While doing so, the linguistic problems, too, were being faced to interpret
Vedic texts for the break up with original linguistic tradition! This, again shows, the change in
linguistic geography of the Vedic religion as well.
Schools of Atharva Veda

Interestingly, we find many kings of later times to have preferred Atharvan priests over Rig
Vedic priests. Atharva Veda came to be known as ‘Veda of the Purohitas’ (Royal Priests’ book).
This Veda traditionally also was known as ‘Kshatra Veda’, Veda of the warriors. Atharvan priests
also were warriors, actively participated in the wars and thus were called as warrior priests,
Kshatra Brahmanas.13

The Bhrigu branch seems to have propagated this Veda independently establishing several
branches in the north. The title of this Veda, although, they may not have composed it, could
have been after them because descendents of this branch propagated it and popularised it.
Bhrigukachchha (modern Bharoch) may have been their earliest seat in India. Patanjali of
Mahabhashya and Shaunaka in Charanvyuha enumerate the nine early branches of these Vedas.
They are, Paippal, Dant, Pradant, Snat, Sautra, Brahmadavan, Shaunaka, Devdarshani and
Charanavidya. However, only two branches, namely Shaunaka and Paippalada, are extant.
Shaunaka is said to be descendent of Bhrigu clan.14

This clearly shows that the three Vedas were being propagated independently by the Rig Vedic
tradition through various schools and Atharva Veda was being propagated independently by
Atharvan schools untill both the traditions were amalgamated.

Shaunaka: There are many Shaunakas in Vedic and non-Vedic history. It is said to be the family
name, because the composer of second book of the Rig Veda Grisamada, too, is Shaunaka. In the
clan of the Bhrigus, a seer is also named as Shaunaka. The texts like Rigveda-Anukramanika,
Rig-Pratishakhya, Brihaddevata, Charanavyuha etc. are traditionally credited to him. The myth is
that one Shaunaka united the Shakala and Bashkala recensions. In Mahabharata, Shaunaka is
acclaimed for his expertise in Samkhya philosophy and Yoga. The still extant school of
Atharvaveda is also credited to him. There also are another texts credited to him such as 5th
Aranyaka of Aitareya Brahmina.15

In all, it only means that there were many Shaunakas belonging to the different traditions and at
time, those were mingled together. Or, it was a fictitious person created out of Vedic myths to
provide credibility to various texts composed/compiled by some minor groups of opposite faiths.

We can see from above that there is one Shaunaka who promoted Atharva Veda along with others
and another Shaunaka who was involved in the compilation/collection/writing of Rig Veda
related works. Atharvan Shaunaka, who could be descendent of Bhrigu clan or he got associated
with it by virtue of accepting Bhrigu Gotra, promoted Atharva Veda. We have nothing much to
say on the Shaunaka of Rig Vedic tradition except that he contributed heavily to it. However,
Shaunaka of Mahabharata to whom Ugrashrava recites Mahabharata story, most possibly
belonged to Bhrigu clan as his queries that Ugrashrava answers in the Adiparva are mostly
related to the history of Bhrigus.

Agastya: All scholars agree that the spread of Vedic religion in the south took place in later
times. The myth of the Vindhya Mountain bowing to Agastya is normally associated with the
Vedic expansion towards South India. In South India, Agatsya is most revered seer to whom
many Tamil texts including Tamil grammar are attributed. If mythological elements are removed
from the stories related with Agastya, it is clear from the mythologies that he was the first person
who introduced Vedic religion to South India. It does not seem that he was quite successful in
those endeavors as Tamil mythologies rather associate him (and his wife Lopamudra) with Shiva,
Sri-Vidya tantrik tradition and also as member of Tamil Sangam literary council.16

Agastya of Rig Veda, as we have seen in the previous chapters, was a family name and that the
Agastyas originally did not belong to the Vedic tradition. His name, too, does not find any
etymology in the Vedic language. Besides, there is no Rig Vedic or Atharvan school attributed to
him. Another reference we get from Mahabharata that Lopamudra was the Princess of Vidarbha’s
(Maharashtra) King to whom Agastya married. There are various hermitages of Agastya recorded
in different texts, such as one being in Vidarbha (Bhandardara), another being near Nashik, at
Panchavati and other in Malaya Mountain in South India.

What we can deduce from this is that the Agastya who became missionary in South India could
not possibly had been the composer of Rig Vedic hymns. In later course of the time, some
Agastya, either descendent of the Rig Vedic Agastya or a namesake, along with his family took
the task of spreading the Vedic message in South India. All his hermitages recorded belong to the
southern part of the Vindhya Mountain and none in the north.

Agastya is not enumerated in the list of famous Saptarshis (seven sages) but the bright southern
star Canopus is named after him, indicating Agastya’s southern connection. Needless to mention
here that the Agastya could not have been a lonely traveler to South, but must have been
accompanied by his family and disciples. South Indian Vedic tradition always has been
composite of Vedic and Shaivaite tradition, which means though the Vedic religion was accepted
and practiced by some, southern Vedic converts did not abandon old traditions. It seems a similar
tradition emerged in North India as well to practice pre-Vedic tradition along with the Vedic
faith, however maintaining Vedic glory over it.

However, it seems that the spread of the Vedic religion was not easy in its early and middle
times. Though some centres flourished under the royal patronage, some did not for the rejections.
Satapatha Brahmana preserves the fact by informing us that the Asura race of the eastern regions
(Prachyas), those spoke Mlechchha language, had their own priests and did not entertain Vedic
rituals. Until Mahabharata time, this situation prevailed as eastern kingdoms those were called as
Baleya Kshetra where five sons of King Bali ruled. Most of the Asura kings of India, though
occasionally patronised the Vedic sacrifices, did not abandon their faith nor worshiped Vedic
deities.17 It is clear from the mythological accounts that such opposition from central and
southern Indian monarches as well too had to be faced by Vedic preachers. Aitareya Brahmina
preserves a myth, which calls all the dynasties of south as ‘Shudras’, non adherents of vedic
religion.

We can surmise that the spread of the Vedic religion was not that easy in the country.

We have seen that the religious tradition of Indus-Ghaggar civilisation continued to be powerful
in India till date. The reason as to why Vedic religion could not have become prominent and
practiced by all seems to be hidden in the fact that the performing Vedic rituals were
complicated, time consuming and costly affair. Though the Vedic rituals could create veneration
and awe in the minds of the masses, they stuck to the traditional ways of idol worship, for its
simplicity and ancient reverence towards it!

Vedic language scenario

Though we are not aware exactly when so called Vyasa ventured to gather extant texts and divide
Vedas to introduce the Vedic religion through his pupils to the foreign masses, it appears that the
dialect of Rig Veda had become unintelligible. Brahmana texts tried to explain some verses in
its way during Brahmana period. Of Sutra period, Yaska’s ‘Nirukta’ is an ancient book that
attempts to explain meaning of Rig Vedic vocabulary. Yaska had before him, ‘Nighantu’, a small
version explaining the meanings of the Rig Vedic words. It is said that there were about 17
commentators explaining meaning of Rig Vedic texts in Yaska’s time. Among which was scholar
Kautsa who blatantly had declared that the Rig Veda is meaningless! Kautsa claimed that the
science of etymology as a tool for comprehending the meaning of the scriptural texts was
worthless because the Vedas had no meaning at all! Thus, in the opinion of Kautsa, the
scriptural texts have been reduced to non-linguistic magical sounds.18 (Italics mine.)

This does only mean that during Yaska’s era, Vedas had become unintelligible to its adherents
and attempts to understand its meaning, rules of that language and pronunciation patterns had
begun.19

Later, in the medieval period as well, the number of other commentaries were written on Rig
Veda, including the commentaries by Skandasvamin (pre-Sayana, roughly of the Gupta period),
Udgitha (pre-Sayana), Venkata-Madhava (pre-Sayana, c. 10th to 12th centuries). Later, in 14th
century Sayana, a brother of the minister Madhava of Vijayanagar Empire wrote extensive
commentary on Rig Veda, ‘Vedartha Prakasha’.

However, when Western scholars began to understand Rig Veda based on his works, they found
it quite unsatisfactory. Later, with comparative studies with the language of Avesta, many words
came to be understood and helped them to understand the most of the meaning of Rig Vedic
verses.20

The attempts to make phonetic, some grammatical changes with replacement of some local
words while transliterating or contemporising it from time to time, to make it somewhat
intelligible to local disciples seems to have utterly failed. It became impossible, it seems, because
to replace much of original vocabulary it was necessary to have knowledge of their exact
meaning, there couldn’t have been any option but to leave them unaltered, but with phonological
modifications! The words, meaning of which they could understand, were translated. For
example, Bhayamana, which is clear translation of the Avestan personal name Vandaremaini,
both mean the same. Similarly, the personal name Ambarisha, too, is clear translation of the
Avestan name Vidasafshnic.

The change in Rig Vedic language is obvious from the fact that, Oldenberg informs us, “…after
seeing that the older Brahmanas they, still contain pre-normalised Rig Vedic citations, the text in
the following centuries underwent pronunciation revisions and standardisation.”21
Scholars also do agree that there are certain interpolations and corruptions in Rig Veda. This
only will mean that while final codification, divisions and rearrangements of the hymns and
verses of the Rig Veda, some portion was freshly inserted while some was removed. We start
finding tropical weather, animal, plant, agricultural instrument references along with flora-fauna
appearing in Rig Veda only because of this. Of interpolation purushasukta is a fine example,
which, beyond doubt, has been proved to be the interpolation of far later times.

Max Muller states “There can be little doubt, for instance, that the 90th hymn of the 10th book
(Purusha Sukta) is modern both in its character and in its diction. (...) It mentions the three
seasons in the order of the Vasanta, spring; Grishma, summer; and Sarad, autumn; it contains
the only passage in the Rigveda where the four castes are enumerated. The evidence of language
for the modern date of this composition is equally strong. Grishma, for instance, the name for
the hot season, does not occur in any other hymn of the Rigveda; and Vasanta also does not
belong to the earliest vocabulary of the Vedic poets.”22

Colebrooke states, “That remarkable hymn (the Purusha Sukta) is in language, metre, and style,
very different from the rest of the prayers with which it is associated. It has a decidedly more
modern tone, and must have been composed after the Sanskrit language had been refined, and
its grammar and rhythm perfected….” 23

We can understand why this hymn was necessary to incorporate in the Rig Veda at later times
because the composers of this hymn were getting accommodated in Indian tropical weather and
social system; they needed to redefine a couple of things to suite the local environment.
However, except for such stray interpolations and additions, we can state safely that the original
composition of the Rig Veda that had completed in the regions of the Helmand basin and had
different linguistic pattern. The change in their original language by replacing vocabulary and
phonologican modification must have been required to adjust with the local linguistic
environment.

Colebrooke describes the process of the development as, “The internal evidence which it
furnishes, serves to demonstrate the important fact, that the compilation of Vedas, in their
present arrangement, took place after the Sanskrit tongue had advanced.” 24

Tarkateertha Laxman Shastri Joshi states that certain syllables, such as ‘Ta, Tha, Da, Dha, Na,
La’, found in Vedas are completely absent from Iranian and Western languages. He further states
that the composition of Rig Veda is of the era when Vedic language was further polished because
of the interactions with Indian dialects. 25 Although, Tarkateertha has assumed Aryan invasion, he
has no doubt that the language of Rig Veda was further improvised with the help of local dialects
and is not original. I have shown that the composition of the Rig Veda was almost completed
while Vedic people were settled in the Helmand Valley. The Rig Veda was not composed when
Vedic language was improvised, as Tarkateertha suggests, but rather, as it shows, original texts of
Rig Veda were transliterated to meet with the linguistic need of the time!

Shendge informs that, a myth that tells the language of Asuras was purified by Agni that Devas
accepted as their own and brought in their use.26 It also suggests that a language purification
process was undertaken by the Vedic people.
Pramod Pathak in his thesis opines after examining hymns 10.71, 8.51.5 and 8.95.5 (RV) that the
Vedic language was newly formulated language from the extant colloquial languages.27

Witzel clearly states that the language of old Avesta is more archaic than the language of Rig
Veda because old Avesta simply lacks the many innovations that characterize Rig Veda’s
innovations that are not found in the other IE languages. Defending his case that had Iranians,
too, resided side by side with Vedic people in Punjab, as indigenous Aryan theory claims, such
archaism ought to have been preserved in Punjab, but this is not the case.28

Leaving aside the debate over migration theories, what Witzel finds about the languages is more
important. He clearly opines that the language of Avesta is more archaic than of Rig Veda. It is
simply because Old Avesta remained linguistically unaltered which was not case with the Rig
Veda. We have seen in the previous chapters that the old Avesta certainly is contemporary to Rig
Veda. We have seen from the various opinions of the scholars that the original language of
Rig Veda has gone through substantial modifications to suit changed linguistic
environment.

The remarkable fact is Vedic language or Sanskrit never had any ethno-socio-linguistic name.
From Persian to Indian Prakrit languages, too, bear some or other name, either of the region or
of their ethnicity. To Vedic dialect, Panini just refers as Bhasha (language) or Chandas (poetic
meter). The same case applies with the Sanskrit as well, which simply means 'refined one’. It is
not any kind of ethno-socio-linguistic name! May be it is because the new formulated language
was built on using various source dialects retaining some of the original forms too! Witzel call
Vedic dialect less archaic mostly because of this.

Hence, it seems that the original language of the Rig Veda must have been quite similar to the
language of the Avesta, i.e. Old Persian with regional variance. A fact to be noted here that in the
regions of Helmand basin, most of the people still speak Dari, a dialect of Persian and is an
official language of Afghanistan. It shows the continuity of the language of the people still living
in those regions. Let us not forget here that the Gathas of Zarathustra were composed in the
Archaic Persian language, the case with Rig Veda, too, would be obviously same. Vedics too
would have used archaic regional dialect of Persian prevalent in Helmand region! B

Also, it would be apparent from above that the north-western dialects of that time, too, would not
have been far different than of those spoken in Afghanistan for the geographical closeness. This
is evident from the fact that the language of Gandhar and Gandhari, was closely related with
Prakrit dialects which between the third century BCE and third century CE served as the literary
language and lingua franca of the northwestern part of the Indian subcontinent. Still the language
is spoken by the people of Khyber-Pakhtunkhva, north-western frontier region of Pakistan,
showing their linguistic continuity. We are aware that the Pakhtuns (Pakhtas) find their mention
in the Rig Veda, which clearly means that there is no change even in tribal and regional identities
of the people since then, though they have undergone many socio-political upheavals. Prakrits of
India, like Gandhari, too, must have their ancient pre-Vedic origin. The net of Prakrit and old-
Persian languages, having own innovations, must have been flourished long before when even
original Rig Veda and Avesta were composed. The Indian northern vernaculars to the Vedic
disciples, when they sought abode in India, could have been little difficult to understand, but
could not have been totally unintelligible.

The faithful preservation of the Vedic texts by oral tradition from the date the verses were
composed, in which Indian scholars love to believe, cannot be the case looking at the above
discription. Thinking the language of the Rig Veda is archaic, language of the gods, is a myth
that carefully nourished by the Vedicist scholars.

When exactly the process of transliteration/modification began and completed cannot be

determined exactly. Though the date of final edition of the Vedas is not certain, scholars have
tried to place it somewhere between seventh century BC to fourth century BC. Griffith suggests
Sakalas final redaction of the text could have taken place in the middle of first millennium
BCE.29

Indian scenario

We must have a look what was Indian scenario when Rig Vedic disciples appeared in India and
after to understand its significance on Indian traditional religious practices.

We have seen in the earlier chapters that Indus civilisation had gradually disintegrated because of
the climatic changes. There is some proof that the urban centres could have suffered from
epidemics, such as malaria and cholera because of the climatic changes.30 Although, there was a
decline of the urban centres because the people abandoned them, the shift of the culture was
from urbanisation to towns and village-like small settlements. The standard of living, too, seems
to have gone down substantially. Archaeologists suggest massive reduction in density of the
settlements. During this post-Harappan period, 1900/1800 BCE to 1300 BCE, throughout the
greater Indus region, the majority of settlements were villages and campsites with small towns.
During this phase number of settlements increased dramatically in Gujrat and the east.31 The
emergence of Painted Grey Ware Culture (1400 B.C) can be attributed to this socio-economic
slow-down.

Periods given by archaeologists for the decline of Harappan civilisation and rise in the urban
centres to the east and south of Harappan civilisation, suggest no displacement of the people
from the concerned regions, but change in the settlement patterns because of the changed
economic scenario. In about 2,000 BC since Mesopotamia experienced political and economical
upheavals, Harappan trade with them seems to have severely affected. However, the rest of India
maintained their distinct regional cultures with periodic shifts because of the technological
advances. For example, although there were signs of urban decay, the cultural vibrancy did not
suffer to a great extent. The first evidence from South Asia of production of the glass beads and
bangles are found in post-Harappan phase, suggesting considerable technological advance of the
Indian people. 32

From Indus civilisation and the other archeological sites of central and south India of different
times, it clearly appears that the Phallic and mother goddess worship was widely spread. Besides,
finds at Indus-Ghaggar civilisation, at Daimabad, Maharashtra, (Savalda phase, 2300 /2200
BCE) have yielded a phallus in agate. Noted archaeologist Dilip Chakrabarti concludes from the
find that, “…although one would hesitate to characterise it is a specific, textually mentioned type
of Shivalinga, it is identical with the modern phallic stone denoting Shiva…” 33 We also have
figurines of female with sex marks or heavy breasts and bulls (1,400 BC) from Inamgaon
indicating continuity of the ancient religious practices of bull and mother goddess worship.
Similarly, terracotta representation of a phallus of Chalcolithic era has been reported from
Mahishdal of West Bengal. Finds at Navdatoli (Madhya Pradesh) clearly shows the worship of
mother goddess.34 Similar phallic and mother goddess objects have been reported from southern
parts of India. The physical finds clearly indicate that the genital worship was largely practiced
by the Indians from ancient times.

Possibly, there were other contemporary totemic cults also, like river, tree, various animals,
serpents, Yaksas and sun-moon worship which seem later on were amalgamated with Shaivait
tradition. Local village or family deities, too, were mingled with Shiva or Uma as their real
forms or their reincarnations in later course of the time. However, the basic fabric of the worship
remained intact.

Except of stray mentions of Indra worship in the form of a festival ‘Indramaha’ dedicated to him
in olden times, this has been out of practice since long ago. We find no influence of Vedic deities
on Indian religious tradition. Rather, there are hardly any temples dedicated to any of Vedic
deities.C

As far as conducting fire sacrifices, we find only two epigraphic proofs from Shrunga and
Satavahana dynasties. But, the descriptions of the sacrifices they conducted are in Prakrit, not in
Sanskrit or Vedic dialect. However, there are many sacrifices mentioned in Puranas and epics
which is not a substantial proof to suggest its widespread practices.D

On the contrary, the numismatic and epigraphic proofs (from seventh B.C. and onwards) clearly
show that the Shaivait, Buddhist and Pancharatra traditions were popular. Rather, even in on the
coins, we do not find any symbol or image associated with Vedic tradition.

Dr RN Dandekar in this regard states that, “The religion of proto-Siva, which had thus taken
deep roots in various parts of India, seems to have been temporarily overshadowed during the
interlude when the Vedic Aryan religion had been firmly and rapidly extending its influence. But
that pre-Vedic non-Aryan religion could not be altogether smothered or even ignored. Actually,
the Vedic religion adapted –or rather, was constrained to adapt – within itself some of the
features of that religion, though with evident hesitancy and reluctance.” 35

This does mean that the pre-Vedic Shaivait religion fundamentally was drastically different than
the fire-centric Vedic religion which has continuously flowed to us. Vedicism, as Dandekar
interpretes, was an interlude in Hindu tradition, which could not leave any remarkable impact on
it. They just came as religious preachers, had attracted minor populace to their fold those after
conversion propagated further that religion. Mostly, those who claim Vedic inheritance in India,
are none other than a majority of converts and indigenous. The original disciples who came to
India must have lost their ethnicity in course of the time.

We have proofs from the north; during Painted Grey Ware culture era too (approx. 1400 B.C. till
600 B.C) female figurines are excavated. This indicates Mother Goddess worship. No remains of
sacrificial fire altars have surfaced during various excavations, although archeologists like B. B.
Lal attributed the PGW culture to the second wave of the intruding Aryans.36

However, there was no discontinuity between decline of IGVC and rise of PGW culture, rather,
it overlaps indicating gradual replacement of the technologies. It shows no foreign elements
penetrating to have substantial change in the pottery making style. In some sites, PGW pottery
and Late Harappan pottery are contemporaneous.37

From BB Lal, we understand about the general lifestyle of the PGW people. They mostly were,
during this phase, dependent on the agriculture, cattle and fishing hunting as the source of
livelihood, as was during the prosperous Harappan era. The people had achieved expertise in
manufacturing iron objects, besides traditional use of copper. Glass bangles found at Hastinapura
site have proved beyond doubt the technological advance of the people of these times. From
finds of Jakhera, it has come to the light the knowledge of geometry of the people. Drawings on
the flat-face terracotta pieces demonstrate some knowledge of the concept of the circle, quad-
rant, rectangle, etc. That these people also used scientific instruments such as the divider is
clearly indicated by the intersecting circles incised on a potsherd found at Jakhera. A typical
dinner set in the Painted Grey Ware consisting of the thali (dish), katora (bowl) and lota
(drinking vessel) has been found that highlights the tradition followed, even today, in an average
Indian household.38

Excavated sites in the south indicate that their economy, too, was normally based on animal
husbandry and agriculture. The pottery of regional variety, too, has been found in the regions
other than IGVC dating back to 2,500 BC. The pottery patterns of Andhra Pradesh show close
similarities with the pre-Malva culture. Some pottery belonging to the Neolithic phase recalling
those of pre-Harappan Amri and Kalibangan also have been reported from some sites.39 This
only indicates that though different linguistic groups, there was exchange of cultural ideas
between north and south from ancient times.

Although, we do not know for sure, what kind of socio-political organisations did exist during
this period, looking at the somewhat static nature of Indian society, the country must have been
distributed in 16 or little less Maha-Janapadas, occupied by small monarchs and Republic states
in those times when Vedic tradition entered India. The symbols used by Maha Janpadas on their
punch marked coins are diverse in nature, clearly indicating that the every Mahajanapada bore
unique symbol to represent identity of their region and had been retained over the time, at least
from the seventh century BC till first century AD. The symbolism does not seem changed over
the period of almost 800 years despite political upheavals.
Of the symbols on the punch-marked coins, they moreover represent Gnosticism prevailing in
the civilisation of those times along with Shiva-Shakti (fertility) worship. Presence of trident and
arrows, weapons of Shiva, suggests the dominance of Shaivait religious practices. On the
dynastic coins of the Kushana King, Vima Kadphises (first century AD) Shiva starts appearing in
the human image form which practice was continued by Kanishka. (AD 127 to 150) Also,
Buddha images and Buddhist symbolism, too, appears on the coins issued by various Indian and
foreighn kings and trading guilds. The languages used on the coins and all inscriptions of this
period, too, are Prakrit dialects in Brahmi/Kharoshti scripts indicating no presence or dominance
of Vedic dialect or Sanskrit. All the coins of this era, from seventh Century BC onwards lacks in
any kind of Vedic symbolism indicating its insignificant dominance. We always have seen that
the language of elite always is used in the inscriptions and on the coins. However, it does not
seem the case at all with Sanskrit! Rather, we surprisingly find first Sanskrit inscription only
appearing in as late as160 AD. We also find that the Sanskrit inscriptions gradually replacing
Prakrit only after 3rd Century A.D.E

Instead, from the Epigraphical hybrid Sanskrit and Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit, we find the gradual
development of the Sanskrit language. This language, though touted as hybrid, is nothing but a
mere a form of ‘mixed Sanskrit’ in which the original Prakrit has been incompletely Sanskritised,
with the phonetic forms being changed to the refined (Sanskrit) versions, but the grammar of
Prakrit being retained. For instance, Burrow shows, Prakrit bhikkhussa, the possessive singular
of bhikkhu (monk, cognate with Sanskrit bhikṣu) is converted not to bhikṣoḥ as in Sanskrit but
mechanically changed to bhikṣusya.40 This indicates how the Sanskrit of Panini was being
developed from the Prakrit languages. Sanskrit cognate of Bhikkhu naturally is evolved
gradually to the present form.

Indian scholar Mahulkar explains; through the adverb ‘iha’, which is both Rig Vedic and
classical Sanskrit, is borrowed first from pr-Middle Indo-European (i.e. old Prakrit) which was
present in Gandhari, Pali, sauraseni, Maharashtri and Magadhi as ‘Idha”, and in Avesta, too, as
‘ida’, that languages start their course of life as Prakrits, languages of the people; and become in
course of the time moulds of formalised literary expressions.41

We can understand that how a branch of the language independently develops in course of the
time to suite the necessities of the religious texts, philosophies and sciences. We have seen how
the original texts of the Rig Veda were transliterated in newly formulated Vedic dialect that had
basis of the original close-to-Avestan language in which they originally were composed. Hence,
the myth that the Sanskrit is mother of all Prakrit languages is untrue. There is no material proof
to support such notion except that the hypothetical classification of old, middle and younger
Indo-European languages. The classification itself is unscientific and only is based upon the
myth that the Vedas were preserved as it were from the date of its composition. Rig Vedic texts,
too, do not support this hypothesis.

It does mean that the Prakrit languages maintained their dominance over a long period. Even in
pre-Vedic era, the Prakrit languages, from Maharashtri to Gandhari must have been spoken in
their archaic form in their respective regions. We have ample proof of the pre-existence of all
these Prakrit languages and their continuity till date in those regions, which is not the case with
Vedic or Sanskrit language. Rather, Prakrit languages seem to have become substratum for the
development of the Vedic dialect. The proven Sanskrit literature, too, seems to have appeared
only in 2nd century AD in form of the Ashvaghosha’s (c. 80 to c. 150 CE) epic, “Buddhacharita”.

All logics extended by the scholars to explain the complete absence of the material proof of their
existence are futile because in same breath, they keep on claiming the Vedic dominance all over
India in historical times. Had it been the case, Vedic dominance during that vast span of the time,
would have been seen from at least a single specimen inscription to demonstate the sign of the
presence or dominance.

It is thus illogical of the scholars to state that the Vedics, too, had almost forgotten Sanskrit and
instead had adapted Prakrit. In that case, there is no explanation as to how that there is sudden
explosion of Sanskrit inscriptions and inscribed copper plates, in north as well as in south,
replacing Prakrit! It cannot be the case that all of sudden, entire Indian populace after 3rd century
AD started understanding Sanskrit!42 The only logical explaination to this phenomenan could be
attributed to the fact that the Sanskrit in its most advanced form was developed only after first
century AD and gradually, became the official language of the courts and royal communication.

Anyway, while North India was enjoying traditional cultural, religious and linguistic life without
having influence of foreign elements to speak of, Dravidians, too remained dominant in southern
parts of India from ancient times, though, there is proof that they traded with northern regions
like Malva. Although, Dravidians maintained their linguistic identity, exchange of vocabularies
and culture in both the groups was but natural. The myth of Dravidian displacement from Indus
Valley to the south has no locus standi in light of the available proofs. Hence, there is no need to
elaborate on this issue.F

Shudra’s real identity

Since the term has been, too, controversial, causing irrepairable damage to Indian society and
caused an outrage for its use in a derogatory manner for social suppression, indicating lowest
status of the largest population since long time, we need to have a brief look at the reality.

The most importantly word ‘Shudra’ appears in the only hymn, Purusha Sukta, which otherwise
is completely absent from Rig Veda. Many attempts have been made by various scholars to find
the real meaning of the Shudra and who were they. The people Dasa, Dasyus have been
mentioned many a times in Rig Veda, though contemptuously for their different faith. But
Purusha Sukta mentions, instead of Dasa-Dasyus, the Shudras, as name of a class of the people,
that, too, in a hymn that has been proven to be a later composition.

Suprisingly, in later Vedic texts the term Dasa and Dasyus (equivalent to Iranian Daha, Dahyu),
used in Vedas for the people, goes on vanishing and remains just as a suffix of the personal
names or denotes the servents. They, Dasa/Dasyus, no longer remains to be a set of the people,
whether rivals or not. Rather while speaking of fourth section of society, the people other than
Vedics, the term Shudras have been applied in the Purushasukta.

The sudden shift in the terminology, assigned for the class of the people clearly means that the
Vedic had come across the new set of the people and needed a new terminology to address them.
It also is clear that the Dasa/Dasyu people were left far behind by the time of this hymn was
composed. Rather, the appearance of the term Shudra for people is in itself a proof that the Vedic
geography had changed from Afghanistan to India.

This also is evident because, we should note here that, the term ‘Shudra’ or its equivalent is not
present in Avesta at all. What we find is Daha – Dahyu, equivalent to Dasa and Dasyus, in Avesta
applied to the people of the land or compatriates. To Rig Veda, they are people who adhered to
the different faiths and thus were enemies. It would appear the term Shudra has been emerged
from nowhere which have no meaning whatsoever! This sure creates a problem for the
proponents of indigenous Aryan Theory as well.

Also, let us not forget here that the term Shudra have no etymology, neither in the so-called IE
languages nor in Dravidian languages. RK Pruthi suggests that perhaps Shudra was originally the
name of non-Aryan tribe.43 It may surprise us why then this tribe never came across the Vedic
people to make its slightest mention in whole bulk of Rig Veda except for Purushsukta where
suddenly it forms a major part of society?

Rajwade suggests that the people those were taken in the personal service by the victorious
Aryans were called as Shudras. According to him, the term was later applied to those all who
were out of three Varnas. 44

Bhandarakar opines that the Shudras could be a tribe but afterwards came to signify anybody
who was not a full-fledged Arya or a foreigner who has been partially assimilated by Arya
culture. He further states that in Sutras Shudra denotes a person other than the member of three
Varnas, i.e. Brahmina, Kshatriya and Vaishya.45 Interestingly the term ‘Varna’ for class, too, is
new Vedic innovation because it is absent, too, from Avestan scripts!

If removed Aryan and replaced with Vedic, it will be clear from above opinions of the scholars
that those all who were not Dasas or Dasyus or Vedics, those all lived in the Indian subcontinent,
practiced different religion, were Shudras for the Vedic people. The fact is, though in
Purushasukta, Shudra seemingly is enumerated as fourth class of Vedic religion; it was never at
all the case.

If we carefully read the RV 10.90.12, it makes clear that, the head of Purusha became Brahmin,
hands became Kshatriya, and thighs became Vaishya….but Shudras were born of his feet. Feets
did not become Shudra, but the Shudras were produced from them. It clearly indicates the
distinction between Vedic and non-Vedics. (The Brahman was his mouth, of both his arms was
the Rājanya made. His thighs became the Vaiśya, from his feet the Śūdra was produced. (RV
10.90.12, Trans. Griffith))

The term only would apply to Indian people, as Purushasukta is a very later composition that
was inserted in Rig Veda. It mentions Indian seasons and uses the term Shudra for people first
time and in the only verse. In later Vedic texts, we find the term appearing frequently to denote
the people; those were not part of the Vedic religion.
It could have been essential for the Vedics to name the people other than them or it was a term
already in use to address the people of India. Those who were originally Vedics and those who
were converted to Vedic religion and set in one of the three Varnas, authorised to Vedic recitals
and ritualistic practices, were but naturally Vedics and part of three Varnas as Bhandarkar
suggests.

The rest of the masses, following their traditional religion seem to have been named as Shudras.
Alternatively, it could be a term used by Indians to address themselves from ancient times, but
then, the original term must have been phonetically quite different and Shudra could be the
corrupt Vedic form, thus making us impossible to find its origin or any etymology.

Vedic corruptions of other loan words are not new. It can be proved from one instance that
Vedics in India pronounced corrupt form of the ancient country name ‘Meluha’ (Melukkha) as
‘Mlechchha’, which, later on lost its original meaning and became synonym of the people who
spoke strange or foreign languages. 46

Same could have happened with ‘Shudra’ which in later course of the time became a derogatory
term; originally, it couldn’t have been the case.G The fact is, we forget, Shudras were and are
non-Vedic class, practicing idolatry from ancient times which was banned in the Vedic religion.
Shudras were not authorised to carry out Vedic rites or recitals because they did not need it for
the sake of their own distinct religion they had preserved and still is practiced by the majority.

Another fact, which we should not overlook, is that the Vedic class had not vanquished the local
population to enforce their languages and culture upon them, as many social activists like to
believe. Rather, we see uninterrupted Indian tradition of the culture since minimum of 7,000 BC.
RN Dandekar has explicitely stated that there is no significant influence on the Indians those are
practicing their religion since pre-Vedic times. The present Vedics cannot be blood linked with
the original preachers those had come to India; those, too, must have lost their ethnicity after
mingling with the Indian populace. We find there have been the Vedics in India of different
ethnicities and language groups because they are one whose ancestors had embraced to the Vedic
faith in remote past. There is no foreign blood or so called Aryan element in them to boast of.
The Vedic religion became dominant after medieval period for sociopolitical reasons.

The fact remains that the two religions, Vedic and pre-Vedic, coined together under common
umbrella name ‘Hindu’ were always and are distinct in practice, rituals and philosophy. The fact
is that, although Vedics accepted idolatry gradually, they maintained their independent identity
of religion with retaining all rights over Vedas, related literature and Vedic rites. This cannot be
called as assimilation based on equal footings. The evil spell of many socio-psychological
conditions, especially the birth-based inequality, are direct or indirect products of it.

To sum up, Shudras were never a part of the Vedic society. They practiced an independent
religion from ancient times. To Vedics, the way people like Dasa, Dasyus of Iran, those followed
different religions and hence, looked upon contemptuously. Similarly, of India, Shudras, too,
became a derogatory term in Vedic literature for the adherents of different religion, when they
safely settled here and converted sufficient Shudras to their fold. The over-glorification of the
Vedas and their divine origin, as we have seen in this chapter, has been a carefully nourished
myth and deserves rejection in totality. Rather, the matter of worry is the supremacist Vedicist
scholars are on the move to discredit Shudras from their own cultural and religious inheritance,
which needs immediate attention.

The harm it has done, in the form of seeding an inferiority complex and a sense of inequality in
the minds of non-Vedic masses, needs to be removed in the light of these bare facts!

Bibliography

1. ‘Early Indian History: Linguistic and Textual Parameters’, by Michael Witzel in The Indo-
Aryans of Ancient South Asia, edited by George Erdosy (ed.), Pub.: Walter de Gryuter;
Berlin, 1995, p. 114 including footnote.
2. ‘Original Sanskrit Texts on the Origin and History of the People of India – Their Religion,
and Institutions (Vol. 2), edited by John Muir, third edition, 1874, p. 403-5.
3. ‘Plant macro-remains from Neolithic Jhusi in Ganga Plain: evidence for grain-based
agriculture’, by Anil K. Pokharia, J. N. Pal and Alka Srivastava, Pub.: In ‘Current Science’
(Vol. 97, No. 4), August 2009.
4. ‘Agricultural Origins and Frontiers in South Asia: A Working Synthesis’, by Dorian Q.
Fuller, published in ‘J World Prehistory’, December 2006, 20:1–86.
5. ‘Settlement Geography of the Punjab During the Early Historic and Medieval Periods : A
GIS Approach’, by Mark A. Smith , pub.: ProQuest, 2007, p. 297.
6. ‘Bharatiya Sanskruti Kosha’, edited by Pt.Mahadeva Shastri Joshi (Vol. 9), Pub.: Bharatiya
Sanskrutikosh Mandala, 2000, p. 210.
7. Ibid, p. 209.
8. ‘An introduction to epic philosophy’, edited by Subodh Kapoor, Pub.: Cosmo Publications,
2004, p. 454.
9. ‘Zoroastrianism: An Introduction’, by Jenny Rose, I.B. Tauris & Co. Ltd., reprint, 2012.
10. ‘Bharatiya Sanskruti Kosha’, edited by Pt. Mahadeva Shastri Joshi (Vol.1), Pub.: Bharatiya
Sanskruti Koshamandal, third edition, 1997, page 712-713
11. ‘Vedas and Upaniṣads’, by Michael Witzel, in ‘The Blackwell Companion to Hinduism’,
edited by Gavin Flood, Blackwell Publishing Ltd., 2005, p. 69. (Available online at:
http://cincinnatitemple.com/articles/BlackwellCompanionToHinduism.pdf)
12. ‘History and Principles of Vedic Interpretation’, by Ram Gopal, Pub. Concept Publishing
Company, 1983, p. 22.
13. ‘Bharatiya Sanskruti Kosha’, edited by Pt. Mahadeo Shastri Joshi (Vol. 1), Pub.: Bharatiya
Sanskruti Koshamandal, third edition, 1997, p. 119-20.
14. Ibid
15. ‘Bharatiya Sanskruti Kosha’, edited by Pt. Mahadeo Shastri Joshi (Vol. 9), Pub.: Bharatiya
Sanskruti Koshamandal, third edition, 2000, p. 439-40
16. ‘Encyclopedia of Hinduism’, edited by Constance Jones, James D. Ryan, Pub.: Facts of File,
Inc., 2007, p. 13.
17. ‘Some Aspects of Ancient Indian Culture’, by D. R. Bhandarkar, Pub.: Asian Education
Service, reprint, 1989, p. 35.
18. ‘Hindu World’, edited by Sushil Mittal & Gene Thursby, Pub.: Routledge, 2004.
19. ‘ Marathi Vishvakosha’ (Vol. 2), edited by Tarkateertha Laxman Shastri Joshi, Pub.:
Maharashtra Rajya Sahity Sanskruti Mandal, p. 956.
20. Ibid, p. 956-57.
21. ‘Encyclopedia of Indo-European Culture’, edited by J. P. Mallory Douglas and Q. Adams,
Pub.: Fitzroy Dearborn Publishers, 1997, p. 379.
22. ‘A History of Ancient Sanskrit Literature’, by F. Max Muller, Pub.: Williams and Norgate, ,
1859, p. 570-571.
23. ‘Miscellaneous Essays’ (Vol. 1), by Henry Thomas Colebrooke, see footnote, Pub.: W. H.
Allen and Co., 1837, p. 309.
24. Ibid, Footnote, p. 309-310
25. ‘Vaidik Sanskruticha Vikas’ by Tarkateertha Laxmanshastri Joshi, Pub.: Pradnyapathashala
Mandal, third edition, 1996, p. 33.
26. ‘The Language of the Harappans: From Akkadian to Sanskrit’, by Malati J Shendge,
Abhinav Publications, 1997, p. 75.
27. ‘Rig Veda, Indus Culture and the Indo-Iranian Connections’, in ‘IRANIAN JOURNAL OF
ARCHAEOLOGICAL STUDIES’, 1: 1 (2011), by Pramod V. Pathak
28. ‘Indocentrism’, by Michael Witzel in ‘The Indo-Aryan Controversy: Evidence and Inference
in Indian History’, edited by Edwin Bryant, Pub.: Routledge, 2004, p. 367.
29. ‘The Rigveda’, R T H Griffith, 1896, p. 13.
30. ‘The Ancient Indus Valley: New Perspectives’, by Jane McIntosh, Pub.: ABC- CLIO, 2008,
p. 92.
31. Ibid, p. 91.
32. Ibid, p. 90-93.
33. ‘The Archeology of Hinduism’ by Dilip Chakrabarti in ‘Archeology and World Religion
edited by Timothy Insoll, Pub: Routledge, 2001, p. 48.
34. ‘Hinduism’ by R. N. Dandekar, ‘Historia Religionum: Religions of the Present’ (Vol. 2),
edited by G. Widengren, Pub.: BRILL, 1971, p. 247.
35. Ibid, p. 246-47.
36. ‘The Painted Grey Ware Culture of the Iron Age’, by B. B. Lal, p. 423-24. (Available online
at https://en.unesco.org/silkroad/sites/silkroad/files/knowledge-bank-article/vol_I%20silk
%20road_the%20painted%20grey%20ware%20culture%20of%20the%20iron%20age.pdf)
37. ‘Reurbanization: The eastern Punjab and beyond. In Urban Form and Meaning in South
Asia: The Shaping of Cities from Prehistoric to Precolonial Times’, by Shaffer, Jim, 1993,
ed. H. Spodek and D.M. Srinivasan,
38. ‘The Painted Grey Ware Culture of the Iron Age’, by B. B. Lal, p. 423-24 (Available online
at https://en.unesco.org/silkroad/sites/silkroad/files/knowledge-bank-article/vol_I%20silk
%20road_the%20painted%20grey%20ware%20culture%20of%20the%20iron%20age.pdf)
39. ‘Pre- and Protohistoric Andhra Pradesh up to 500 BC’, edited by M. L. K. Murty, 2003.
40. ‘The Sanskrit language’, by T Burrow, Pub.: Motilal Banarasidas, first Indian edition, 2001,
p. 61.
41. ‘Pre-Paninian Linguistic Studies’, by D. D. Mahulkar, Pub.: Northern Book Center, 1990, p.
129.
42. See http://asi.nic.in/asi_epigraphical_sans_language.asp
43. ‘Indian Caste System’, edited by R.K. Pruthi, Discovery Publishing House, 2004, p. 72.
44. ‘Radhamadhavavilas Champu’, Preface, edited by Vi. Ka. Rajwade, Pub.: Sarita Prakashan,
reprint 2014, p. 130-31.
45. ‘Some Aspects of Ancient Indian Culture’, by D. R. Bhandarkar, Pub.: Asian Educational
Services, Reprint, 1989, p. 12.
46. ‘The Indus Civilization’, by A. H. Dani and B. K. Thapar, p. 274. (Available online at
https://en.unesco.org/silkroad/sites/silkroad/files/knowledge-bank-article/vol_I%20silk
%20road_the%20indus%20civilization%20BIS.pdf)

Notes:

A. The narrative of ‘Satapatha Brahmana’ goes like this:

‘1:4:1:11. He (the priest) began to invoke the latter with verses of the Rig-veda, 'We
kindle thee at the sacrifice, O wise Agni, thee the radiant, the mighty caller to the
sacrificial feast (Rig-veda V, 26, 3)!--O Videgha!'
1:4:1:12. He (the king) did not answer. (The priest went on), 'Upwards, O Agni, dart
thy brilliant, shining rays, thy flames, thy beams (Rig-veda VIII, 44, 16)!--O Videgha-a-
a!'
1:4:1:13. Still he did not answer. (The priest continued), 'Thee, O butter-sprinkled one,
we invoke! (Rig-veda V, 26, 2);' so much he uttered, when at the very mentioning of
butter, Agni Vaisvanara flashed forth from the (king's) mouth: he was unable to hold
him back; he issued from his mouth, and fell down on this earth.
1:4:1:14. Mâthava, the Videgha, was at that time on the (river) Sarasvati. He (Agni)
thence went burning along this earth towards the east; and Gotama Râhûgana and the
Videgha Mathava followed after him as he was burning along. He burnt over (dried up)
all these rivers. Now that (river), which is called 'Sadânîrâ,' flows from the northern
(Himâlaya) mountain: that one he did not burn over. That one the Brâhmans did not
cross in former times, thinking, 'it has not been burnt over by Agni Vaisvânara.'
1:4:1:15. Now-a-days, however, there are many Brâhmans to the east of it. At that time
it (the land east of the Sadanira) was very uncultivated, very marshy, because it had not
been tasted by Agni Vaisvânara.
 1:4:1:16. Now-a-days, however, it is very cultivated, for the Brâhmans have caused
(Agni) to taste it through sacrifices. Even in late summer that (river), as it were, rages
along: so cold is it, not having been burnt over by Agni Vaisvânara.
1:4:1:17. Mathava, the Videgha, then said (to Agni), 'Where am I to abide?' 'To the east
of this (river) be thy abode!' said he. Even now this (river) forms the boundary of the
Kosalas and Videhas; for these are the Mathavas (or descendants of Mathava).
1:4:1:18. Gotama Râhûgana then said (to Mâthava), 'Why didst thou not answer when
addressed by us?' He replied, 'Agni Vaisvânara was in my mouth; I did not reply, lest
he should escape from my mouth.'
1:4:1:19. 'How then did this happen?'--'At the moment when thou didst utter the
words, ‘(Thee), O butter-sprinkled one, we invoke!’ just then, at the mention of butter,
Agni Vaisvânara flashed forth from my mouth; I was unable to hold him back, he
issued from my mouth.'
1:4:1:20. That (word) in the sâmidhenîs, therefore, which contains butter (ghrita) is
especially suitable for kindling (sam-indh); and by it he accordingly kindles him (Agni,
the fire) and bestows vigour on this (sacrificer).
1:4:1:21. Now that (word) is ghritâkyâ, 'with the buttered (spoon).'--'He nears the gods,
wishful of bliss.' Wishful of bliss, truly, is the sacrificer, since he wishes to approach the
gods, to go to the gods: therefore he says, 'he nears the gods, wishful of bliss.'
This (verse), which is addressed to Agni, is undefined (vague); and undefined,
doubtless, is the 'All;' he thus commences (this holy work) with the All.’

If this is read carefully, important facts appear from the translation. Videth Mathava
had started his journey from Saraswati river, not Ghaggar, as has been misinterpreted
by the Eggeling. While this translation was committed, it was firmly believed that the
Aryans had invaded into India and their first settlement was in Punjab. In second stage,
in the form of Mathava, they expanded further in the uninhibited regions and
populated them. However, the basis of this conjecture was wrong. Thus northern
mountains (Uttar Giri) mentioned in this myth could not be Himalayas as Eggeling
thinks. Instead, it must be Hindukush. Similarly, later Vedic tradition seems to have
connected Videgh Mathava with Videha kingdom. It is clear that by the time this
incident took place in the court of Videha king Janaka, the original history of the travel
of the preachers had become obscurred. (See- Satapatha Brahmana Part 1 (SBE12),
Translated by Julius Eggeling [1882], Pub. : Atlantic Publishers & Distributors. 1990,
Page, 104-6)
B. We find that the net of Prakrit languages was historically spread till Gandhara region.
Regional variances are always expected those we find even today in Prakrit languages
of different regions. Since Gandhari language was spoken in Gandhara region, close to
the Helmand valley, the linguistic difference between the languages of people would not
vary drastically. Even today, we find the Dari, a Persian dialect used by the people of
South Afghanistan. We can safely assume that the archaic form of the present Dari
 must have been spoken in Helmand Valley where the Rig Veda shaped up. The
similarities and dissimilarities in the languages are due to only the regional variances.
In fact, we find presence of the Prakrit dialect in Bogazkoy treaty and the horse
training book of Kikkuli, not Vedic dialect. Vedic dialect, because of the shift in the
geography, clearly shows the influence of changed linguistic scenario and thus possess
different linguistic pattern, which bear no name!
C. Indramah, also known as ‘Indradhvajotsava’ (Flag-Festival of Indra) was being
celebrated in Satvahana era too. Couple of Gathas of Hal Satvahana mentions this
festival. The last mention of this festival occurs in ‘Sarasvati Kanthabharanam’ (5.314)
of Bhoja. (Approximately 11th century AD)
D. In regards with total absence of the Sanskrit epigraphs in the vast span of the time, i.e.
500 years, V.V. Mirashi states, “Though the Traivarnikas (three Vedic classes) had to
study Vedas by residing at Guru’s home, it seems their knowledge of Sanskrit was
limited.” He further states, “It is surprising that though Satavahanas conducted sacred
fire sacrifices (Srauta Yadnyas), the inscriptions describing them are in Prakrit.”
( ‘Satvahana ani Paschimi Chatrap’, by Dr. V. V. Mirashi, Pub.: Maharashtra Rajya
Sanskruti Mandal, 1979, p. 151-52)
This may indicate absence of the Sanskrit in Satavahana era! The argument of Mirashi
(or likeminded scholars) is not tenable because study of Vedas was not limited to the
recitals of Vedic verses, but was coupled with study of grammar. Therefore, the claim
that ‘limited knowledge of the Sanskrit’ cannot be justified.
E. It is often thought that many kings patronised Prakrits because of the influence of
Buddhism and hence there is absence of Sanskrit inscriptions. However, it was not the
case. Ashoka’s inscriptions are not at all in Pali, the language of Buddhism. They are in
regional Prakrits. The language on the coins issued by regional trading guilds including
Gandhara too is Prakrit. Sunga dynasty is said to be revivers of Vedicism, still the
language on its coins or epigraphs is Prakrit. The foreign rulers, Scythian King Maues,
who had expanded his kingdom till Gandhar, Kashmir and Taxila (150 BC) had issued
bilingual coins, using Greek and Prakrit. Except for Kanishka, who extensively used
Bactrian language on his coins, Spalahores and all other foreign rulers including
Kushans too followed the same practice. These kings were not Buddhists. Rather almost
all the foreign rulers had given equal position to Shiva images on their coins. Still there
is absence of the Sanskrit. What we find is gradual progression of Prakrit words
towards Sanskrit. For example, the epithet of king, we can see from the coins, have
progressed in several steps, such as Rajne, Rajatirajasa, Rajadirajasa to final version
Rajadhiraja. This shows development in the expression attaining polished form. We
find rather hybrid Sanskrit (or Prakrit) emerging only after first century BC that
gradually shaped up in the Rudradaman’s epigraph of 150 AD. From third century
onwards we find Sanskrit is gradually replacing Prakrits and after fourth/fifth century
becoming only dominant language in the country.
F. Most of the scholars, owing to the Aryan Invasion Theory or migration theory had
postulated that the Dravidians, who were occupants of the IGVC, were forced out or
displaced to the South. The linguists had based their argument on the shreds of some
words those were supposed to be coming from Dravidian, para-Munda and some
unknown language source. A lot of work done on this by Witzel and others prompted
Asko Parpola to attempt deciphering the Indus script based on Dravidian and
Mesopotamian languages. (‘Deciphering the Indus Script’ by Asko Parpola, 2009)
However, only because some words (may be around 500) one does not find any
etymology in Vedic dialect. It was a bold argument that the loanwords in the Rig Veda
was outcome of the Vedic Aryans interaction with the natives and that the natives of the
IGVC were none but Dravidians. However, the facts are:
1. There was no invasion hence there could not have been defeat and displacement of
the Dravidian people from the north to south.
2. Linguists like Southworth expresses that the words those does not fit into EU
etymologies. Citing various examples he states, they could have been the borrowing
from Dravidian or other indigenous languages. In short, the linguists are not certain to
determine exactly to which language such ‘foreign’ words belong to. (‘Linguistic
Archaeology of South Asia’, by Franklin C. Southworth, Pub.: Taylor & Francis, 2004,
p. 69-70.) Witzel identifies about 383 words which are not of Indo-Aryan or Indo-
European origin and he believes that the oldest stratum of these loanwords in the Rig
Veda is derived from Munda or related (and otherwise unknown) Austro-Asiatic
languages which he designates as Para-Munda. However Southworth opines, “There
are as yet a few definitive Munda or AA etymologies for these words, and of those that
do exist, some still require rather tortuous argumentation.” (Ibid, p. 67-68)
3. Ahmad Hasan Dani also opines that there is no evidence of cultural continuity
between the Indus and Dravidian cultures. Noted epigraphist Iravatham Mahadevan
clearly stated in a lengthy interview, “There is no sense in saying that the people in
Tamil Nadu are the inheritors of the Indus Valley culture. You could very well say that
people living in Harappa or Mohenjo-daro today are even more likely to be the
inheritors of that civilization.” (Iravatham Mahadevan interviewed by Omar Khan on
January 17, 1998, published on www.harappa.com) What he says makes more sense in
an absence of evidence to indicate displacement of Indus people to south. The people
living in the IGVC regions today rather strongly show their affinity in many cultural
aspects with Indus civilization.
4. Mostly Dravidian scholarship’s sharp response is to the Aryan Invasion theory,
claiming north India as their previous habitat. The Dravidian Nationalist scholars in
return have used the AIT to claim their authorship over the IGVC. The stray words of
so-called Dravidian origin, however, do not substantiate any such claim. Hence
capitalizing on Aryan invasion or migration theory has done no good to the both sides.
Rather, it has severely damaged the thread of neutral scientific approaches.
 Therefore, we can safely conclude that the Dravidian displacement hypothesis is rather
politically motivated than the attempts to make systematic unbiased researches to reach
nearer to the truth.
G. Early Vedic literature, like Yajur Veda, Atharva Veda mentions Shudras respectfully.
Let us see couple of examples:
Yajurved 18.48:
O Lord! Provide enlightenment/ compassion to our Brahmins, Kshatriyas, Vaishyas
and Shudras. Provide me also with the same enlightenment so that I can see the truth.
Yajurved 20.17:
Whatever crime we have committed against my village, forest or committee; whatever
crime we have committed through our organs, whatever crime we have committed
against Shudras and Vaishyas, whatever crime we have done in matters of Dharma,
kindly forgive us relieve us from the tendency of the same.
Yajurved 26.2:
The way I gave this knowledge of Vedas for benefit of all humans, similarly you all also
propagate the same for benefit of Brahmins, Kshatriyas, Shudras, Vaishyas, Women
and even most downtrodden. The scholars and the wealthy people should ensure that
they not deviate from this message of mine.
Atharvaved 19.32.8:
O Lord! May I be loved by everyone – Brahmin, Kshatriya, Shudra or Vaishya. May I
be admired by everyone.
Atharvaved 19.62.1:
May all noble people admire me. May kings and Kshatriyas admire me. May all look at
me with admiration. May the Shudras and Vaishyas admire me.

This makes it clear that Vedic people had to respect and pray for the Shudras as well
because they were mostly dependent on them, in the early times. This was land of the
Shudras and their religion. Initially Vedics could not have afforded to initiate any
contempt or enmity against them. However, as Vedic religion grew with the significant
inclusion from the Shudra class to Vedic fold and availed patronages from various
kings, gradually Vedic people must have started despising Shudras and thus it became
a derogatory term. We have seen above this was not the case in early times.