|
| ||||||||||||
Their research is very amusing. No Dravidian nor Munda language can be deduced from mere artefacts. So the link with a (pre-)Indus Valley is not more than a day dream. Urdu is a Turkish word, which means a "camp". This word came to India with the Turks who were hunted by the Mongols. The language itself is based on a local language of Delhi. Since the Turks had many recruits from locality, their language was called "Urdu", or language of their subjects, for the leaders themselves continued to speak Turkish! (Even the Moghuls, for they were Chaghatay Turks!) It was employed with the Bahmani Sultans, and was called there Dakkhini. Language is based on grammar, and not on mere words or word coincidences with other languages. Urdu is clearly a West-Hindi language which has its firm roots in the Shauraseni Apabhramsha and Shauraseni Prakrita. The expressions and loan idioms of Persian (an Arya language) and Arabic do not change the fact that the language is a New-Indo-Aryan language. And that is the international academic word applied to this language! About the ethnicity: The Pakistani and also most Afghani and Irani are culturally and ethnically of roundabout the same origins. The Panjab was once according to the Avesta and Indian sources the battlescene from where the Arya expansed, but contacts remained. With a strange habit some Muslim rulers wanted to erase the past of the conquered countries. This was done so well that many Afghani tribes believe to be descended from a tribe of the Middle-East, though their culture and language are clearly Arya. It seems that the same process is going on now with Urdu. It amazes me why the Pakistani are maybe so ashamed of their 'Indian' past, that they want to invent a new identity. |
Friday, July 10, 2009
Re: Ideology and Aryans [Re: 
Edit 
Reply 
Quote 
|
| ||||||||||||
The Hebrew under Abraham were living in Ur where they took with them the Sumerian story of the flood (Gilgamesh). In the Book Esther, the Hebrew were subjects of the Persian Empire. From the Persian they adopted in this period or maybe even in the more remote past of Mede rule, the ideas of the dual deity: Ahura Mazda (God) and Angra Mainyu (Satan). The Hebrew were so often under foreign rule that it is hard to say what was original theirs. But that the Hebrew were ethnically NOT Arya is an accomplished fact. They are cousins of the Arabs and remoter cousins of the Egyptian. It doesn't mean that the Middle-East was not culturally and commercially linked to India: The Indus Valley Civilization artefacts in Iraq-Iran do proof that Indian people were present in the Middle-East from those days on. And what to think about the Kassite(NW-Iran) and Mitanni Arya Empire(Turkey, N-Irak-N-Iran) in the second millennium before Christ. And also the Hyksos in Egypt. Or the Aryan royal names in Syria in that same millennium. If there are kings, there are also related people, like business men, farmers and ordinary peolple present. In the Shahnameh of Firdausi, some Sassanian Arya King invited a few thousand Indian people to entertain the Persian. Where have they gone? I just want to remark that no country stays isolated, when coming in contact with another. |
|
| ||||||||||||
According to my knowledge, to stay on topic, linguistics have never alone proven any original home of any nation. No AIT supporter nor any non-AIT supporter have proven only on the basis of linguistics the coming of Arya out of or from India. Even archeology hasn't proven the invasion. About the Dravidian link with the Indus Valley script: after so many decades supporters can say nothing more beyond hypotheses with no general acceptance. The most sorry case with India is, that it is very hard to disprove an older controversial theory, even if that theory is never ever proven. The adversaries have first to disprove that silly theory by reading a massive collection of sensical and nonsensical works, before being taken serieus. But this is not being a scientific way to handle subject matters. With this I mean the clumsy way with which AIT supporters talked about a northern home, because of the salmon and birk, etc., or the non-AIT non-philological equations of names. Only a multidisciplinary real scientific attitude may help to tackle this problem. And not budgets and sponsorship of groups on either side with other than an academic vision. P.S. I am personally not much convinced by the AIT arguments. I'm also aware of the importance of philology and linguistics. But the theories are especially in Europe (where I live) and the US developed out of AIT ideas before becoming a mature unbiased discipline. It is now a gigantic task to revise. Some damage is undone (revision), but there's much to be done, especially in the nature of Arya civilization or the Dravida-Arya dichotomy: In no Dravidian or Aryan book you can find both groups as hostile or alien. The Puranas for instance simply state that the South-Indians were offsprings from Dushyanta Paurava, the adopted son of Marutta the Turvasu. This branche of Turvasus merged with the Purus, who became the Bharatas. Some Turvasus partially remained in (south)western India, some went to the south: after Marutta came Sharutha, Andira, Sandhana, Pandya, Chola, Kerala, Chola and Kola. What does this mean. It simply means that according to the Puranas, based on some older pre-colonial information, the southern Indian had a connection with the northerners, from the sousthwestern direction on. Investigators have now to look seriously to the connections in archeology, philology-linguistics, cultural agreements, etc. Is there a southwestern remain of that southern culture or not, etc. You need a multidisciplinary open approach, but without bias, if that is possible. |
|
| ||||||||||||
About Varna: For me it is strange why the only meaning for Varna is from vr=to colour. The more logical root meaning would be from vr=to choose (vrnoti). This last meaning we find in the word 'vara=choice" in 'svayam-vara'. An even older meaning is from vr=to cover, which we might have in "Varuna'. This last meaning may cover both other root meanings? The modern Hindi word knows of a verb 'varnan karna=to name, mention'. What is the root of this word in Sanskrit? The word 'caste' is from Portuguese 'casta'. The Indian word at that time was 'Jati' and not "Varna'. I have the impression, which might be a research subject, that the words Varna and even Jati were originally meant 'clan'. In the RigVeda we have the Arya Varna (mainly Puru: "Indian") and the Dasa Varna (mainly Anu: "Irani", calling themselves Daha, like in the inscription of Darius), which were both Arya people, but becoming somewhat hostile towards each other. Nowhere you cab find references that the Arya and Dasa Indoligists do not accept any caste structure in the RigVedic age. I hope to find out whether the word 'zai' in the clannames of the Pathan (presumably the Paktha of RigVeda) is related to Jati. In that case my suspicion would be fair. In the ArthaShastra we come accross occupations like the guilds of western Europe, but nowhere do we find a 'caste-like' rigidness of much later days. There too many occupations to put them into a Chaturvarnyam structure. Even the BhagavadGita which was certainly in vogue in the third century BC (Heliodorus, the Graeco-Bactrian, mentions Vasudeva and became a Bhagavata) has this shloka: BhagavadGita, chapter 4, verse 13: Chaaturvarnyam mayaa shristam gunakarmavibhaaghashah, tasya kartaaraam api maam vidhyakartaaram avyayam. The system of four Varnas are created by me based on guna=qualities and karma=acts, etc. Which means that there is no mention of the later caste-like situation! |
|
| ||||||||||||
Correct, Lhotse, but the only problem with the term Iranian is that it is not correct. With that term many languages are covered, which might not be Iranian at all. The Pashtuni/Pakhtuni language has many relations with Persian, but is a local Afghani-Pakistani language, whith automatically many agreements with Indian languages. The Avestan language is now believed to be from Aryana-Afghanistan, and not Iran. Zarathushtra mentions many places which are only to be found in the regions beyond Iran proper. Many conscious Afghani feel really offended by the notion of being part of an Irani group, for they know that Dari has more links with the older Avestan than with Old-Persian. The Avestan language in its oldest Gathic component is very close to Sanskrit, which Old-Persian (from 6th century BC cuneiform inscriptions) isn't. I would like to see the case of Scythian-Shaka people investigated, who must be the Tuirya of the Avesta. In the Kashmirian chronicle the Turushka are called a Shaka tribe. We might see some glimpses of Turu-Tuirya in that name and also the ending shka for shaka or shk-uthai (scyth). Maybe this is a fanciful etymology, but it is worthwile to investigate. If true, than the Shaka people (they also called themselves Arya, which we can find in the name of a tribe, the Alana from Aryana) were different from the 'Irani' group, and maybe more related to the Greek group, who are as Yavana called as of Turvasu descent. All I want to say is that established academic terminologies aren't necessarily the correct ones. |
|
| ||||||||||||
Maybe any theory is just a fashion and a matter of arguments, luck and support. Before the European colonised the world, no Indian believed they came from elsewhere, nor was there any gap between people from Iran to India. (this changed when the people tried to wipe out their pre-Muslim past) After becoming part through England of an European way of thinking, India was looked upon through classical Roman-Greek and Christian eyes. Of course this had an impressive impact on the minds of both Indian and European. Ideas and habits take time to be rooted, and even more time to be uprooted. (Just try to get rid of a simple annoying habit, it will cause more annoyance) Now that India tries to get rid of that annoying way of looking upon her culture, she gets an even more annoying reply. Being labeled as 'Hindutva" sounds like a slap on the face for trying to seek for justice and truth. The more sincere researches are put on the same pile with less sincere shouts. And that is a pity. An academist should look to bare facts. And the fact is that no Aryan invasion is ever proven. It would be more sensical to look at facts as how they are: If any mention of Yavana is in any book, are they really Greeks of Alexandrian age, or are other people mentioned? When the Kashmirian Chronical of Kalhana mentions a Kanishka who ruled over Kashmir and midwestern India, it doesn't mean that he is the Kushana king of roundabout 80 AD or so. For, Kalhana calls that Kanishka a Turushka Shaka! And his reign was before the Gupta Age! Another fanciful hypothesis is the equation of Xandrames-Sandrocottos-Amitrochates with Dhana Nanda-Chandragupta-Bindusara Maurya. The more logical equations are Candra(mas) Gupta I- Samudra Gupta-Chandra Gupta II (this last is Vikramaditya, the Amitraghata or crusher of enemies, the Shaka tribes). The Greek historians like Arrianus, Diodorus and Curtius mention facts that agree with a Prakrit play named as Kaumudimahotsava, but also with the description of Vishvaphani in the Puranas and Samudra Gupta (Sa-undra in Prakrit, becoming Sandro in Greek). It would be very strange for Greeks to meet Mauryas, but not name them, as even Magadha isn't named. They name the Prasii =Prachya). Even more strange is the name Palibothra, which can hardly be a correct Greek rendering of Pataliputra. Palibothra sounds more like Paribhadra, who dwelled on the Ganges. It is nonsensical for Ashoka to inherite a vast empire of his father from north to south and to reconquer it again. The Kalinga War was more logically the war of Samudra Gupta against a confederacy of Sout-Indian kings as can be deduced from his Allahabad Inscription. Pliny (VI-21-22-23) says: At the time of Alexander, the Andhras were reputed to possess a military force second only to that of the command of the king of the Prasii. When was there a military power of Andhras in the Mauryan days? No Mauryan emperor mentions them! Note that Samudra Gupta was named Ashokaditya, as the Mauryan king was named Ashokavardhana! In the Manjushrimulakalpa, a Buddhistic work, the description of Samudra Gupta fits well with that of the conqueror Ashoka of the inscriptions. The Piyadassi Inscriptions are of twofold nature: the ones which belong to Ashoka Maurya and the ones which belong to Ashoka Gupta or Samudra. The Guptas were (Bhagavata) Hindus, under whose rule many classical works were written. Buddhism was in the more remote areas of western India and Pakistan, where the Bactrian Greeks were (for instance Milinda-Menandros as Buddhist, but Heliodorus becoming a Bhagavata in the Mathura area, part of Guptan Empire). This means that the Guptas ruled from 329 BC-82 BC and not from 324-550 AD. How could the Guptas rule at a time when the Kushanas were a threat. The Guptas don't even mention Kushanas, but only Shakas!. The last king to defeat the Shakas is Harsha Vikramaditya of the Vikrama Era of 57 BC. Harsha is named as a Guptabhrtya King, which means that he and his father came after the Guptas. This automatically means that the Mauryas were far earlier in time than now is taught in the history books. And the ancient history of India is mainly based on the inscriptions of Ashoka! From that anchor is back-dated the birthyear of Buddha, another relative anchor. Om Buddha's date is based the whole Vedic chronology, for Buddha is thought to come after the oldest Upanishads. The Puranas place the Barhadrathas, Pradyotas-Haryanka, Kalashoka-Shaishunagas, Nandas, Mauryas, Shungas, Kanvas and Andhras before the rise of the Guptas of 329-82 BC. That is a whole block of names with many developments and stories, making the so -called dark or unknown ages more known. Buddha is to be placed during the Pradyotas-Haryankas, as Mahavira. During Pushyamitra Shunga is to be placed Patanjali's Mahabhashya. That is far older than the third century BC ascibed to this Patanjali. A contemporary of Pushyamitra is Abhimanyu of Kashmir who crushed the Turushka Shakas, who ruled with their kings Hushka, Jushka and Kanishka (different from the Kushana of post 78 AD). This demonstrates that the chronology of the traditional AIT school is not correct as is presented. |
|
| ||||||||||||
quote Venkat If you accepts only the vedas as being the most important defining characteristic of being Aryan, do you then repudiate the later changes in Hinduism which make us anything but "Aryan"? Do you accept the non vedic Gods like Shiva and his linga, Krishna the enemy of the Vedic Gods and temple and idol worship which are alien to the veda? Dear, Venkat. To my knowledge Shiva as Krishna is a Vedic name. Some Khilas to the RigVeda Samhita, the Shivasamkalpa Suktas, are part of the Vedic tradition. The Shivasankalpa Sukta is again back in the Shukla YajurVeda 34-1 to 6. Shiva as a God has just like Vishnu adopted many features of their predecessors Rudra and Indra respectively. We can see a gradual development from Old Vedic customs around Mitra and Varuna and somewhat later towards Dyau-Surya-Savitr to the Middle Vedic customs around predominately Varuna and Indra and in remoter areas Rudra, towards later Vedic period in which Indra is the main Deva. After the Vedic period Vishnu, also a Vedic name takes over the features of Indra (blue chest of Indra for sky). The Krishnaite stories indicate the gradual increase of power of Vishnu. In remoter areas Rudra becomes more affused with Shiva. Krishna himself is a Vedic name, even mentioned in the RigVeda, but not identical with the later hero. Harita Krishna (Devakiputra) is mentioned as the pupil of Ghora Angirasa, a Vedic teacher. I doubt him to ben the hero, because Vasudeva Krishna is much later, in the Brahmana Age far later than Rishis like Aitareya Mahidasa and Vajasaneya Yajnavalkya, who came after the Old Vedic Ghora Angirasa. I think that even Gopala Krishna, the son of Nanda and Yashoda is another person. The best way to see the development from Vedic Age to classical Gupta Age is to study the Mahabharata and the Puranas. The Mahabharata started as Vyasa's 'Jaya' of 8800 shlokas. When it became another Vyasa's 'Bharata' of 24.000, if we can rely on the first shlokas of the recent Mahabharata, we are in much later time. From Vyasa it passed on to the Suta family, but it was became the 'Mahabharata" of 100.000 shlokas or more in the hands of the Bhargava family. The last part, the Harivamsha is Bhagavata work, so it must have been strongly recast during the classical Gupta Age. The Puranas began as a work of 4000 shlokas, became soon divided into three besides the conservative original, and was also recast into multiplied shloka works. (The Ramayana was also original a non-Valmiki Bhargava work. He just features in the the first and last Kanda, but never in the main story, which is older. In the older parts Rama is a Indra bhakt, gradually changing into a Rudra-Shiva bhakt. But in the first and last Kanda under influence of Valmiki Bhargava, Rama is changed into a Vaishnava, the cult of the Bhargavas who served the Yadava kings in the west of India) I think that Vedic Hinduism is changed gradually and smoothly through the Sutras and Shastras and Stotra-Paddhatis into classical Hinduism. A help to reconstruct this developments are the epic works, but also the political changes with their priestly cults. About "Arya" We meet this work again and again with the Buddhists: they call their religion the Arya Dharma. The 4 principle truths of Buddha are called Chatvari Aryani Dharmani. Many monks used to calling themselves Arya. What about VishnuGupta the writer of ArthaShastra, he was called Arya Chanakya, the Kautilya. Buddha and the Mauryas are not in Vedic times, but also not the monks who dwell from India to all over East-and Middle-Asia. The Sanskrit play Mrcchakatikam which is in the classical age, somewhat near to Harsha Vikramaditya of 57 BC, has the name Aryaka still in an daily honorific way. ( the modern word in Eastern Hindi for grandfather 'aja' is from arya). And what to think about name of the great astronomer Aryabhata. |
|
| ||||||||||||
Before naming Sanskrit as the PIE we have to assume that Sanskrit is indeed the oldest language and the mother of the whole branch. Suppose it is so, than we immediately meet with problems. About which Sanskrit are we talking? The Vedic language has mainly a more West-UP, Haryana dialect. The Brahmana and Upanishads have a more easterner dialect. The Prakrit languages are named according to their geographical location. Many features ot Prakritic words of those areas don't agree with a reconstructed RigVedic original. But lets stay closer to the RigVeda: What about the change of consonants and vowels and even some Prakritisms within: like the word tita-u for sieve. We clearly miss a consonant. Or the word pani for parni. The RigVeda is the oldest stage of Sanskrit as we have now, but in itself it is already the end of many developments. According to some authorities the VIII th Mandala of mainly the Kanva family has many similarities with the oldest Avestan Gathas. The oldest bulk of the RigVeda are the Mandalas II-VII. Besides the RigVeda we have the AtharvaVeda to compare with, and the prose Brahmana portions. The Samhitas contain the oldest form of Sanskrit, but have many differences within. The Brahmanas have a different stage of Sanskrit so also the Aranyaka-Upanishas. Suppose that (proto-)Vedic is the mother of all other languages of the branch, the differences are becoming greater after being separated, but also because of the (proto-)Vedic language developing into the Vedic Samhita language. This Vedic might be different from the period of exodus, so the changes must be considerable. Technically speaking, the Vedic language is not PIE, that would be proto-Vedic. It all depends on in which period the exodus really happened. But this is all conjecture or supposition. |
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
