Showing posts with label Origin of the languages. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Origin of the languages. Show all posts

Wednesday, July 17, 2019

Why Kashmiri language should get Classical Language Status?



There is a demand from Kashmir to honor its ancient and literarily rich languages by conferring upon it the classical language status. However, this proposal is still pending with the Central Government, because erroneously the scholars have treated the Kashmiri language as a descendent language of Sanskrit or Iranian. This error prevents this language from getting classical status. Though the Kashmiri language fulfills the criteria of being Classical, the linguists those blindly believe in Indo-European Language theory and its distribution with the demographic movement of the certain stock of the people do not want to lose their illusory supremacist status. To understand this, let us have an overview of linguistic history.

Position of the Vedic and Sanskrit language

Though the Vedic language has been claimed to be the origin of the Sanskrit and its descendant languages, the linguistic facts are otherwise. Language of the Rig Veda in its present form contains grammatical contamination from other contemporary languages, such as Iranian and Indian Prakrit languages. It is replete with borrowed vocabulary from Prakrit having the base of the Prakrit grammar. Also, many Prakritic forms are left untouched in the Rig Veda. This makes Vedic language, as per J. Bloch, a hybrid language, having no originality.

According to Hargovindadasa Seth, the vocabulary and suffixes of Prakrit have more affinity with Vedic language than Sanskrit.  Had Prakrits emerged from Sanskrit, this wouldn’t have happened 

Linguist Richard Pischel states that the Prakrit languages cannot be traced back to any common source as they could not have developed from Sanskrit as is held by Indian scholars and Hoffar, Lassen and Jacoby. According to him, all Prakrit languages have a series of common grammatical and lexical characteristics with the Vedic language and such are significantly missing from Sanskrit

 Classical Sanskrit appears only after the first century AD. It differs significantly from Vedic language in vocabulary, lexicon, and syntax. The classical Sanskrit language is an artificial language that was developed carefully as a means of communication between the cultures and persons across India. Classical Sanskrit is a product of Vedic and Prakrit languages and not vice versa, emphatically states J Bloch.

Instead, archeologically origin of the Prakrit languages can be traced back to the Bogazkoy Treaty and Horse Training Manual of Kikkuly belonging to 1400 BC. In which we find the Prakrit forms of the numeric and proper names such as Indara (For Indra), Varena (for Varuna) and Eka (for Ekam), Panza (For Panch) Satta (for Sapt), Tusaratta (For Dasharatha) etc. This will prove that the Prakrit has more antiquity than the Vedic and Sanskrit languages. The Sanskrit forms provided in the bracket are obviously a later development in the process of making language.

Had Vedic language been present prior to the Prakrit languages, no matter how short, a specimen would have emerged from somewhere in India or elsewhere, but this is not the case. The oral tradition has been seriously doubted by the scholars because even if we consider that the religious literature was preserved by the oral tradition, written records of the socio-political transactions would be extant somewhere to show the existence of this language the way we find abundant inscriptional and numismatic proofs of the several Prakrit forms. In fact Kashur, like her sister languages, finds her origin in very remote times when human species developed speech, no matter how rudimentary it was in its originality. 

Kashur languages was not only colloquial;  rich traditions of the religious and nonreligious literature has been preserved orally by them. Kashur language (the name Paishachi was given by the outsiders) spoken in the Himalayan mountain range has several dialects due to the unique geological formation. Gunadhya’s Brihatkatha was the oldest known epic written in this language. Though the original Paishachi version is lost in the sands of the time, from Kashmir Kshemendra and Somadeva translated Brihatkatha in Sanskrit. The global literature has been influenced by Brihatkatha as many tales from it traveled across the globe gaining high popularity.

Paishachi or Bhut Bhasa is the term coined by the grammarians and other authors living in the mainland in sheer ignorance about the Kashmiri people and thus they created strange stories about them in sheer imagination. They thought this land belongs to the fiends and serpents speaking a strange language.

This is why the Indian grammarians have not been able to provide much information on the structure of this language in detail. Kashmiri people have been calling their language “Kashur or Koshur” since antiquity and the name has a regional reference which is natural for any language. The translation of Brihatkatha could take place in Kashmir only because the local scholars knew the archaic forms of their language. 
 Though Kashur or Kashmiri language, also known as Bhuta or Paishachi was never considered worthy of study by foreign or indigenous scholars.  Sir Walter Roper Lawrence states that the vocabulary of Kashur is rich, that its phrases are direct and unambiguous and that many terms in it are full of poetic thought.  

Linguist George Abraham Grierson was wrong in his assumption that the Pishacha language spoken in the valley is part of Shina-Khowaar group and occupies a position between Sanskritic language of India proper and Iranian languages of their west. (Linguistic Survey of India, vol. VIII, Part 2, p.2) It is obvious that his assessment was under the influence of the Indo-European languages Theory, an evil outcome of the Aryan Invasion Theory which was prominent in his time.

Calling Prakrit languages “Middle-Indo-European Languages” is an injustice to linguistic science because there is not a shred of evidence to establish the fact that the Prakrit languages, including Kashur,  have been born from Sanskrit or any Proto-Indo-European or Iranian language. In fact, all the available evidence is contrary to this unscientific notion.

Incidentally, intellectuals from Maharashtra have come forward joining the voice of Kashmir to have her own language to get Classical status. Dr. Sadanand More, Sanjay Nahar of Sarhad, Milind Joshi et all are leading this movement from Maharashtra. Delaying or denying this status would be severe injustice with the Kashmiri language.


(Published in daily Greater Kashmir) 

Sunday, February 3, 2019

Journey of civilizations


Image result for history of cultures


When we speak of civilization, we mean the materialistic and spiritual expressions of the people living in certain regions. From ancient times, many civilizations have flourished in different parts of the world. Some have collapsed to give way to new ones or merged with the mighty civilizations or have changed with the time but showing its continuity of basic elements through its course. 

How do we differentiate between civilizations? What criterions normally do we use to differentiate one civilization from others? We normally classify the civilizations by their architecture, religious beliefs, war, and other technologies, script, languages, mythologies, burial practices those indicate life-after-death concepts. There could be some other aspects but what I have enumerated are major those easily can help us to differentiate the civilizations. When we speak of Egypt, Pyramids automatically appear before our eyes and when we talk of the Indus-Ghaggar civilization seals, planned cities, brick-paved roads, and great baths do flash in an instant in our minds. So, architecture becomes a major part of our general classification of the civilizations.

We know about some of the languages spoken in the ancient civilizations, thanks to the written records and their decipherments, same time we do not know what were the languages spoken in many civilizations for lack of the written proofs or inability to decipher them in an absence of Rosetta stone. Indus script and linear A of Greeks are fine examples of this. We may find that the scripts of ancient civilizations, though mostly an independent development, their influences still are detectable in the areas of shadow civilizations. Such as Greek early script was introduced to them by Phoenicians which was further modified to suit the various dialects of Greeks.

We also are aware that every civilization had independent religious concepts and mythologies.  We also find from the archaeological layers the changes in the pantheon of the deities and their changed priorities and evolution in the ritualistic practices. However, some superficial similarities, too, do occur baffling the archeologists and linguists prompting them to propose theories of “outside influences” caused by migrating people. There are examples here for such theories those have been fought viciously by the scholars. For example, from the eighteenth century onwards Aryan Invasion Theories were in vogue those claimed migrations ns of mighty Aryan Race from some hypothetical original homeland, riding in spoke-wheeled chariots, subjugating other contemporary races enforcing their “polished language” and culture over them. The theory did no good to the world. Rather the world experienced genocide and destructive Second World War. Later, the theory was replaced with dispersals of the Proto Indo-European language speakers' from some hypothetical original homeland. However; underlined meaning remained the same, racist and supremacist. 

However, we cannot attribute all the time such migrating hoards for causing an immense impact on the already established civilizations. We should not forget here that the pre-civilization era when agriculture was not invented and human being in bands was roaming in the known regions for the search of the food and grazing lands for his cattle. This was the period that roughly begins from 60,000 BC and continues till 10,000 BC. In this vast span of the time, human beings learned many things…language was one of them. Faculty to speak is as old as hundred thousand years. From proto-abstract-sounds meaningful words were developed, exchanged between the tribes and thus multiplying the basic vocabulary. Since the human transactions were limited, not so complex, language too was rudimentary. All the vocabulary was not independent innovation but accumulated through the exchanges as well. Not only vocabulary, the religious concepts too did evolve during this era. The technologies, such as stone weaponry, stone-utensils and artificial skin-clothing and shelters too were developed during this era. The geographical sense and regional affinities too must have been evolved in this transitional phase when he transgressed from hunter-gatherer man to pastoral man. About 40000 years ago we find sudden cultural explosion across the globe that involved from jewelry making to specific funeral practices.  We cannot attribute such cultural innovations taking place in a single tribe and at a single location but can attribute them to the continuous exchanges, imitations, modifications and independent or joint advancements out of the need of the human being. The stone weaponry is a common feature of all the human species spread across the globe. It was not an invention of any single tribe, but of all the tribes of those times. The early inventions mostly have been out of the grave necessity of survival against all odds.

The era of foragers must have been too interesting in many aspects. First of all, a vital question remains unsolved that whether early humane first appeared on some certain place (e.g. Africa) and then later dispersed to populate the globe or had it been the multiregional creation is a hotly debated topic amongst scholars today. Though I support the multiregional model for Out of Africa theory for single location model has its own limitations loaded with Biblical Adam-Eve fantasies.

Anyway, there is no doubt that the early human was a forager. But the most important question would be how he must have been deciding on the directions to move? He mustn’t have roamed aimlessly to any direction where he hoped for food and game. In all probabilities, he must have known the regions where he could find enough food and shelter. People always accommodate the known environments and the available food. The regional food habits vary greatly even today. Then in ancient times such variation naturally would be greater. 

Early populations, about 60,000 years ago were far less, could be one person per square kilometer at the most. The earth was going through the Ice Age during those times. However, far remote and climatically hostile regions, such as Antarctica and nearer regions to the North Pole must have avoided by him. He had formed bands, mostly consisting of the blood-related people. He soon must have learned what was edible and what was not. But the process wouldn’t have been that simple. He would have tried various vegetation, fruits, and meat. After a lot many accidents or catching fatal diseases he would have selected carefully his diet. He must have known soon which animal was dangerous and who wasn’t! As we find a regional variety of flora and fauna and forestry, changing seasons and its influence on its growth, he too must have observed minutely the change in nature with seasons. Why his roaming must be limited to the known regions is only because he must have preferred the places where he could find known food and game…and even known tribes with whom they could establish a dialogue.

For the fear of the unknown, he must have limited his life within the known regions where he could feel safety and assurance of survival, is but natural.

But how far he could have been reaching? There is no material proof available to indicate a single tribe’s journey, its original place, and its travel. However, there are suggestive hypotheses that some tribes had traveled across the oceans to populate remote islands in ancient past. What forced them out of their place of origin or region may remain speculative. It could be either because sudden climatic changes forced them to leave the known regions or it was an eternal zeal of the human being to know the unknown, risking life sometimes!

The scholars do admit that the foraging communities had a lot of leisure time. What they needed from the surrounding was the food. Working a few hours a day would be enough for them. Rest of the time, unlike another animal kind, there must have been attempts to communicate, making tools and weapons from the stones and bones. Evenings they might have been dancing with their early rudimentary vocal songs may be meaningless yet with some meaning they only could comprehend. The language, we can find, has roots in the early life of the foragers.

While looking at the recorded archaeological civilizations, we cannot limit our search at that point but have to go back at the earliest era when the modern human species emerged on the earth and started thinking and expression. Forager man could think. He could differentiate between useful and useless, fearsome and friendly. The elements of the early religion too can be traced back to the foragers. From archaeological proofs we find the burial practices getting more and more systematic and elaborate. He must have some ideas about life after death otherwise the burial practices wouldn’t have been felt necessary. He must have envisaged the good forces, invisible but to him existent and so the bad forces. Among tribes they must have discussed vehemently on them, creating the mythologies out of their past experiences or from the rudimentary legends flown to them. Need of the creating new words for deities, demons, a variety of the abstract forces and extant technologies and even flora-fauna thus was the necessity. The cave paintings of France and Bhimbetka of India give us clear hints of their lifestyles and weapons used in hunting, their dances and their earlier domesticated animal.

The tribal identities from kinship must have become stronger with the strengthening of the tribal egos. The totems were the early identities of the tribal clans. The struggles over power within the tribe must have caused the branching of the tribes or bloodbath within the tribes. However overall population must have been fluctuating for the epidemics and natural calamities to which as yet he had no cure. Many tribes could have become extinct. Otherwise, it is affirmatively has been proved from the fossil organisms that the health of the foragers was often better than of the people of early farming communities.  The average life expectancies, though low, but there has been evidence that many persons lived up to sixty-seventies.

However, no matter the first appearance of the human was a single location phenomenon or multi-regional event, the fact is the territorial consciousness in the foragers was a phenomenon that became the foundation of the early civilizations.

How they envisaged the geography? Did they know distant regions? Had they been roaming around the earth during foraging era? We must look at the facts that the foragers had limited their roaming in the known territories and frequently came across the same tribes. Every tribe naturally had multiple tribal contacts thus sharing the information of the faraway tribes. We can call it ‘Territorial Tribal Culture’ those had many features in common. Asia, Africa, and Europe are the continents those are interconnected and yet isolated for their peculiar geographical features. Hence naturally the continental interaction would be far less, but not that insignificant as well.  Every continental tribe’s internal and external interaction naturally would be in a varying degree. The exchanges, linguistics and of technological advances or imitations did spread across the territories because of this. We find many archaic words common in many parts of the world because of such exchanges. However, the fact remains that though there are many common words, they could not retain original pronunciations and at many places, meanings too drastically changed. That way, there is no linguistic root to any word because there is no way to find where the word originated and what it was meant originally!
As far as the known world of the individual tribe, what we understand from the history that the people did not know farthest regions. They didn’t know at all the geographical end beyond their known world. They thought the region intimately known to them was center of the universe. 

The territorial psychologies are interesting that exhibit specific patterns. Those psychologies we find reflected in their religions, mythologies and architecture and so many other cultural aspects. We find From Avesta, Rig Veda and Egyptian scriptures that they knew the world, about five hundred square miles from their respective locations. They mythologized the territories those were heard of but not seen. Rive Rasa (Tigris) appears in Avesta and Rig Veda as the mythical boundary of their world. Hence the claims that new people appeared to effect cultural changes in any civilization are doubtful.
Although, as a human being, it is but natural that the fundamental features of the psychological functioning would be the same, we clearly can see that the psychological patterns changing with every region. The patterns reflect in the culture, in the language and spirituality of every regional culture. No matter how geographically societies are close still speaking varying dialects.  We should call it “Regional Psychology”. We should also find out why the regional psychologies differ to such an extent even within the people of same ethnicity and religions!  Anyway, we shall deal with this in more detail in the next chapters.

Agricultural revolution

The invention of the agriculture has been a turning point in the life of early foragers those had turned to pastoral society by 20,000 BC. Agriculture changed his life dramatically. Although, because of excavated archaeological proofs, it is believed that the agriculture was invented around 7000+ BC, the agro-era, in reality, can be even older by few more millenniums than that of the assumed era.
We do not know when exactly it came to the mind of the pastoral people that he needs not to wander for food and fodder, but he could produce it. He must have observed the cycle of nature, seeds sprouting to grow like the same vegetation. He would have come across the variety of wild plants of maize or other food. He could have actually consumed them. The knowledge of re-growing of the same vegetation after showers must have been acquired from ancient times. He even could have applied it for the fruit-yielding trees by sowing the seeds and would have observed for years in awe the growth of it, if spared by nature. However, it seems he didn’t think he actually could produce food by systematic application of the cultivation.

However at about, say ten thousand years ago, there seems a sudden rise in agricultural practices across the globe. The Mehrgarh and Zargos sites are the archaeological sites those are examples of the oldest agriculture practices. What could be reasons for almost all the tribes turned to agriculture? ? It couldn’t have been a new invention, agriculture. Could have been practiced arbitrarily, maybe as a fun. But he didn’t practice it as a mean of livelihood, or at the least, it would seem so. We have to find what exactly could have happened that the suddenly foragers/pastorals turned to the agriculture and led to the settled life.

Climatic changes

There is a close association of the climatic changes in rising and falls of the human civilizations. It has not only forced humans to change its living patterns but cultural patterns as well.  Recent examples are the decline of Mesopotamian, Indus and Chinese civilization came to decline about 2000 BC because of the gradual climatic change. The living patterns did change because of sudden rise into the aridity because it forced to look for new ways to survive under the changed climatic scenario.

We have to look into the climatic history of the earth. The human being of those times had experienced cold era which is called the ice age. The period was more hostile, difficult for survival and cultivation. However, the genetic makeup of fossilized bones, dating back about 37,000 years ago, found in Western Russia suggests the continuous history of the Europeans. However, ice age, it seems, kept populations limited. But people largely lived in the same areas during the ice age and after. This is evident from the DNA of Kostenki man that was similar to the 24000-year-old boy found in central Siberia.  This also indicates the fact that the people were more rooted in their known territories despite the climatic conditions.

About 12 thousand years ago or little before the Holocene age began. This was a warmer age. The ice melt caused the rising of the sea levels, by almost 115 feet’s. Some animal species became extinct because they could not cope up with climate change. There could have been population loss during the transitional phase of climate change. The human being was forced to change his lifestyle. The innate urge of the survival made him find new ways for livelihood. Our ancestors were the product of the Ice Age. They had experienced glacial era and had adjusted their lifestyle accordingly
.
However, the change in nature, though not sudden, must have forced him to look for new ways for survival. It is quite possible that the humans would have extended their settlements to earlier uninhibited regions for the end of the Ice Age would have emptied many regions covered by ice caps.
The beginning of the agrarian life coincides with the beginning of Holocene. This means this era has very significant and meaningful in our ancient history. Agriculture helped early agrarians to settle down in respective regions wherever he could permanently cultivate. The river valleys were a natural choice for assurance of water supply and fertile lands. This was a revolutionary turn in human history. It dramatically changed his lifestyle and social references. In a real sense, he got rooted to the land. The territories or the regions he used to roam around got more limited because of the agriculture.  
As humane started settling down, except for neighboring settlers, his direct exchanges of the cultural advances became limited. The settled life demanded various inventions and innovations. Implements for the agriculture, permanent houses and safeguards would have been his first need to adjust with the new life. Early architecture, crops, various utensils, potteries etc. were the outcome of the needs of the people of those times.

However, this transitional phase too wouldn’t have been easy. The wars, aggressions to occupy fertile lands by the large tribes would have been evident. Many smaller or weak tribes would have been subjugated, even enslaved. The situation persisted for a long period of time in human history. Even the otherwise peaceful sounding Indus civilization had to build fortification walls around their cities for protection. 10,000 BC onwards till 5000 BC we find the growth of the rural settlements all over the globe. Many such ancient village sites are found and excavated. Gobelki Tepe, Nevali Kori, Jhusi etc are such ancient sites.  Many more have been erased from the pages of the history for either repetitive use of the same sites for new constructions or completely ruined because of their abandonment or bringing them in use for other purposes after they were vacated. However, the excavated sites give us a fair idea about the technological advances of those times.

As the complexities of the settled life grew, the languages too took mostly independent course based on the linguistic accumulations from the wandering past. However, it clearly seems, this caused to give rise to the net of the languages. Many words, concepts, technological features, epithets, personal names to plant names, those occur in the various pan-territorial languages have roots in the remote past. We cannot solve the mystery of such linguistic similarities by formulating “migration” theories but by the simple understanding of the human past. Agriculture and related technical inventions added to the vocabulary. Numerics must have advanced in this era. In a way, we can call it a linguistic explosion!

Anyway, human beings gradually started settling around 10000 BC. The archeological proofs of early settlements and agriculture have been surfaced almost everywhere. In India, Kenoyer has shown from the archeological finds that the people of Indus-Ghaggar Civilization traded with the people of Iranian plateau since 7000 BC. 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).” In Gangetic plains, the agrarian settlements have been discovered that to date back to the same period, or even earlier to that. In Zagros region of Iran archeologists have recently discovered the proofs of agriculture that dates back to 12000 BC. In short, we can surmise that by 10,000 BC, barring few tribes, the human was almost settled on the globe in the respective territories. We do not trace any massive migrations taking place after that. Migrations are not new phenomena occurring in the human world. It is widely assumed that from the ancient times, the human race has been moving from one place to other in the search of the food. The geographical spread of the human beings is attributed as a reason to this. However, the human beings had 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.
The ambitious warring classes might have moved to make military expeditions, but largely the populations did not leave their habitats, even if they were subjugated and enslaved. They, in course of the time, changed their settlement patterns, vacated earlier settlements to move in new and advanced ones. Towns and villages and temples or sanctuaries gradually were developed. So far we have found one ancient sanctuary at Gobelki Tepe dating back to 10th to 8th millennium B.C. This does mean that collective concepts of religion started developing much earlier in almost every region in a unique way.

 food produce in fertile lands, with help of the advanced farming equipment and innovative ideas of canals, grew to a phenomenal extent. The huge granaries found in IVC stands proof for the surplus agricultural produce. Trade of the artifacts, food and other agricultural products, such as cotton, begun with other distant civilizations. Indus trade with Mesopotamia, Middle East, and Iran is established by the archaeological finds.

It can be said that the cultural contact with Semitic and so-called Indo-European speaking territories through trade was simultaneous.  It is a wonder, even then the scholars want to deny Semitic influence over North-Western languages and claim the influence of the so-called IE languages. It is equally possible that the North-Western languages of those times had some influence on Semitic languages. However, such influence means only the exchange of vocabulary and some cultural concepts. The fundamental cultural traits, including languages, remained independent.

The civilizations thrived, reached their heights of the glory and because of the climatic changes in the end of second millennia BC the downfall began almost everywhere. It gave rise to the political upheavals. It forced people to change their settlement and life patterns. The centers of the urbanizations changed and moved to the wet regions. It does not mean the people from arid regions moved to occupy new urban centers. They largely remained in the same regions adapting to the changed socio-economic conditions.

The overview of the human journey tells us that the territorial and regional consciousness in a human being has very early traits. The regions they occupied from early era left an unerasable imprint in his lingo-ethnic identity. It has nothing to do with the racial concepts. It was land that helped evolve the human psychology and thus culture. The early settlement patterns of the human being, though superficially same, in course of the time, we find, every civilization acquired its own recognizable distinct face.  

After the rise of the agrarian era, territorial languages did not remain the same. The religious practices and the pantheons of the deities did not remain the same. Mythologies too took independent paths, though the basic elements, such as the division between good and evil and their epithets had roots in their wandering past. Languages too started evolving independently and rapidly, based on the accumulated vocabulary and rudimentary grammar of his territorial past. Ways of expressions changed with civilizations to civilizations. The civilizations albeit were in contacts with each other, mostly for trade and in case of a war like situations, but one civilization could not erase the cultural past of the other, except notable exchanges. We find the polity had developed to the extent that the written treaties between the two parties to the war used to be signed. We have the proof of a peace treaty that was signed between the Egyptian pharaoh Ramses II,  and the Emperor Hattusilis III that dates back to 1258 BC. Though the earlier treaties have not been surfaced as yet, in all probabilities many must have been executed across the globe prior to this.  

What we can understand from above is that the global cultures started evolving about a hundred thousand years ago. We find the traces of his advances from, though rare, the findings from the ancient past. For example, we have 75000-year-old engraved ochre chunks from South Africa (Blombos), we have 60000-year-old engraved ostrich eggshells from South Africa, and also we have from all over the world the paintings in rock shelters that contain geometric symbolism, suggesting the symbolic communication beginning from about 40000 years ago. The symbols are repetitive and believed by the scholars that they must have been communication symbols. Bhimbetka in Madhya Pradesh of India also is a fine example of this where we find the early human being expressing through art depicting day to day affairs, including his hunting expeditions and dances.

The territorial sense in humans must have evolved around 40,000 years ago or even earlier when they limited their wandering within known geographies instead of roaming directionlessly. They must have acquired knowledge of the regions, flora-fauna, animals, birds, climates and the tribes as friends, foes or neutral, within the territories they knew.

From archeological evidence, we can be certain that the population distribution across the globe almost was completed by this time. Later on, the social cultures thrived almost independently. They were aware of the neighboring and distant reachable civilizations, with which they traded the essentials even risking their lives. We have proofs that the Indus people, known as Melluha to the Mesopotamians, had established their trade colonies in Mesopotamia. Such meaningful migrations and settlements in foreign lands may have been a global practice of those times.

In course of the human history, we do not know for sure exactly when the faculty of languages emerged in the human being. Many tend to think that this phenomenon was accidental. However, we can safely say that when cultural expression begun in form of the dance, rituals, painting and making meaningful things from the natural resources, the faculty of language was present. Rather, we can say that the first utterance of a meaningful word started civilizing the human being. This was a global phenomenon. It could not be the case that some hypothetical group developed the language first and then caused its spread.  However, the present theories propose the same illogical logic with confidence.

The Indo-European language theorists often claim that the invention of the spoke-wheeled chariots and taming the horses by the PIE speakers made them superior over others and their aggressions or migrations resulted in the formation of the IE language family. This is a reckless, thoughtless and unhistorical claim that stands upon a flimsy hypothesis. This is against the history of the civilizations. Rather net of the languages was already formed when the earliest civilization era had begun! The tribes were sharing basic vocabularies for over the millenniums while they were on move within the known territories before they finally had started to settle and there onwards took largely independent course of the linguistic developments! Since the basics were almost similar, developed with joint efforts, finding such common elements couldn’t have been a surprise at all! The net of the languages was already in place.  Hence, the so-called Proto-Indo-European language family needed not any dispersion of some group of the people that had supposedly developed that language independently to spread it with the migration. History of the languages is far older than the assumed date of the so-called PIE Spekers’migration. It is an imaginary theory created with political supremacist motives, nothing else. Rather we need to find, still, why there are different linguistic and cultural groups across the globe?

However, we can note from the excavated pre-history that the civilizations were prospering almost in every continent and territories and regions almost simultaneously exhibiting their own creations and innovations. Every civilization had their own face and characteristics to speak of, exhibiting their distinct identities. They had their independent religious beliefs and most importantly the languages. Roots of the languages, though common in every territory, the languages of every civilization differed significantly, almost unintelligible except those spoken in neighboring regions. Also, we can find overlapping zones of the languages and as we proceed deeper in some regions, like an island, we come across some entirely different language which cannot be classified in the neighboring language groups.

Not only this, with every region, we find significant changes in the cultures, no matter whether linguistic or architectural or religious beliefs, though largely they fall under a common single civilization. The pronunciation patterns too change significantly, no matter even if they are speaking the same dialect! We can notice easily the patterns of the lifestyle-changing with region to region. Many factors associated with the culture thus can be observed taking noticeable forms with the change of the geographical region.

But we have to think on, why so?

Why we do find closely adjoined regions exhibiting distinct cultural features including languages? Why cultural patterns must be changing though the people are of the same ethnicity and language families? Why, although the religion is same, the regional religious beliefs, practices and the way of the expressions do change? Why some of the mythologies regionally too differ significantly though they have a single source of origin?

We have seen the journey of the civilizations, though brief and cursory, has ancient roots. The known civilizations of the globe exhibit their independent expressions through religions, architectures, settlement patterns, and languages. Such distinctive features of the cultures still do survive in the era of the globalization.

There shouldn’t be any doubt that it certainly is the regional psychology of the people that is expressed through their cultural behaviors. We need to examine what makes the people of the certain regions to behave culturally different than the other regions. Why the languages do change significantly with the regions. Rather, we shall probe further whether every region has its own qualities that decide human expressions or whether the present linguistic theorists are right.  





Wednesday, May 3, 2017

Migration theories and the languages!

Image result for ancient migrations
First, we have to admit that the material culture of the human beings walks hand in hand with the language of the people. There are various views about the origin of the languages and their spread. There are almost 445 languages in Indo-European language category. Out of these 313 languages are sub-grouped under the Indo-Iranian head. The spread of these languages is vast that covers regions from North-West China to Europe. We are aware that the origin of the Aryan Race Theory finds its origins in some similarities in Vedic Sanskrit and European languages. Aryan Race Theory, after its disastrous outcome, was later named as Indo-European Language Theory. Without going into the racial aspects of the theory and its fatal impact on the global civilization, let us agree that there is an IE language group theory which consists of all the characteristics of the Aryan Race theory. IE language theory ultimately mean and is aimed to prove the same thing and that is the Aryan invasion, expansion or migration and their superiority.

The theory assumes that there were the people, settled at some hypothetical place, among whom a proto-Indo-European language originated. PIE speakers later dispersed in waves to spread IE languages and their superior culture wherever they went. It also is assumed that the IE people were inventors of the chariots and were first to domesticate the horses. They could invade and conquer the lands because of their superiority, coupled with their innovative invention. Michael Witzel calls them the “Vedic Tanks”!  However, in absence of the proofs to support the invasion theory, the linguists devised migration theory to replace earlier while keeping the notion of superiority of the IE ancestors intact.

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.
In this matter Kazanas’ remarks need to be taken seriously, though, all scholars at the least unanimously agree that there was no invasion; however, they assert there was the migration in the waves in India and elsewhere to explain the similarities in the languages spoken across the IE world. They didn’t think for a moment that the movement of the people is not required to form the group or net of the language if at all it is to be called a group!

The linguistic groups are made out of the comparative study of the grammatical texture, sound-sequences, similarities in the words etc. It is thought that the group languages are developed from the common ancestry. Comparative methods are applied to decide whether certain language belongs to some group or other and also the attempts have been made to reconstruct the proto-language using modern devices. In a way, the group languages can be described as a tree with many branches. However, the linguists have proved that the German languages spoken in the eastern and western Germany do not belong to the same tree. Linguists hence have sub-grouped the European languages like Italo-Celtic, Greco-Armenian, and Greco-Aryan to solve the complicated issue of the languages.  The linguists admit that there are not enough proofs available to show the direct mother-daughter relationship between PIE and present IE languages.  

The oldest proofs those are considered to be the foundation for the PIE theory are the language of Avesta, Rig Veda, Hittite treaty and horse training manual of Kikkuli. Also, there is brief Greek epigraph called Diplon script which belongs to 800 BC.  

Here, we must not forget that the time of the Rig Veda is uncertain and so of the Avesta because both were committed to the writing in late era. Also, both has undergone significant linguistic changes through the passage of the time. There are no proofs to pin the exact time of both the scriptures except hypothetical conjectures. The oral tradition through which Rig Veda is said to be preserved unaltered has proven to be a myth. The only Hittite treaty is attested to 1380 BC, but the irony is the treaty itself is not at all in so-called IE language.  Among others, the treaty invokes some Iranian deities as well as demons those with efforts can be linked with the IE languages. Except for numerics and some technical terms the KIkkuli horse training manual too is in Semitic, language.  The appearance of some similar personal names, numerics, deities and demons in some distinct culture cannot become a solid foundation to prove the presence of the people speaking some hypothetical proto-language.

Another group classified is the Semitic group of the languages, spoken in north Africa, Western Asia and surrounding regions. This is the only language group that has written evidence beginning from 2800 BC. The first written (and hence unaltered) religious text is available in form of the Pyramid Text. Though the hype is all about PIE language and superiority of its authors, there is no conclusive evidence to support the existence of such certain group of the people those together located at some hypothetical place and their subsequent dispersions and conquests. Even the Rig Veda and Avesta does not support this claim. What they have at hand to make out a big claim that is some similarities in the IE languages, nothing else.

It is a fact that if thought linguistically, there exists group languages those again branch out in the sub-groups. Even if we consider ‘Out of Africa model’ to be true as claimed, it does not satisfactorily answer why there would be different language groups if the human being belongs to the same ancestry? Also, though a language belongs to the certain group, why it should be unintelligible to the people speaking other language belonging to the same group?

It will be insane to think that the human being invented the words scientifically devising the roots first. The words have been developed further, attained new or opposite meaning or lost in the course of the time. The science of the words or language follows later. There are many languages those do not have any grammar, still, they have some certain harmonic order that can deliver the intended meaning, no matter how limited it may be.

It is considered that the every word has root and it can be the basis for restructuring the proto-language. The root in language is either a base word or a part of a word to which affixes are added. Or, it is the part left after affixes have been taken away. Technically, it is the smallest unit which carries meaning: it cannot be reduced to smaller units. With reverse efforts, the root can be traced out but then the question is are they of any help?’.

 The Nairuktas (Indian etymological treaties) command that if a word fails to derive meaningful root then abandon the grammatical rules and go by the meaning suggested by the word itself! Obeying the command the etymologists like Yaska and others attempts have been made ti find the etymologies of the many words whose roots do not support the meaning of the root. 

For example, the word “Vadhu” (Bride) has the root “Vadh” (murder) so the root is useless to determine the etymology of the word Vadhu. What to be done then? Find nearest root and that is “vah” (To move) which suggests the nearest meaning of the word, “Vahu”, the girl is moved to the husband's home hence called Vadhu, the bride. Of course, this is the forced etymology! 

There are many words like “Agni” those don't have any certain etymology. The fact to be understood is the words did not emerge scientifically using the roots. Meanings attached to the word keep on changing and there hardly is any way to know what meaning the certain word delivered when it was invented. So, though on a base sound a group of words can be made, the root in itself will remain ambiguous and may not match the meaning of the word. This is why many scholars do not believe in the reconstruction of the proto-language on the mere hypothetical ground when the roots and the words do not agree with the meanings they want to extract, just to prove their migration theories.

The horse and the chariot in itself is a very flimsy foundation to make out a big theory. David Anthony states that it is impossible to know who invented the chariot and domesticated the horse first! As Edward Pegler states that few words in IE languages are attempted to connect with the chariot by reconstructing the root, the etymologies have proved to be the futile exercise as none of it gives the exact meaning what is expected from the word chariot. Even if it is considered that the PIE etymologies for chariot are true, it does not prove that they were the inventors of the chariot. In fact, Nicholas Kazanas, to take Indus time significantly back, tries to prove that the Vedic “Ratha” meant just wagon or cart and not chariot.

Some linguists have tried to connect spread of the IE languages with the invention of the agriculture.  If this is the case then we will have to agree that the agriculture was first invented in Anatolia and it was spread with the expansion of the PIE people! This will be the funny hypothesis because PIE people were not alone inventors of the agriculture! IE languages mostly lack in the agriculture related vocabulary. Vedic people were pastoralists. Sanskrit didn’t have a word for Plough hence they borrowed “Langal” from Dravidian or some other language. The fact is the cart, wagon, chariot, fire, agriculture and many other inventions cannot be related to some hypothetical super-intelligent human group. The spread of the languages too cannot be solely attributed to the migrations of the people.

Most importantly, as yet the PIE homeland issue remains hotly debated and controversial issue as there simply is no agreement on it. They also are not sure exactly when the PIE language arose. The estimates range from 2000 BC to 8000 BC. The Recent study published in “Science” (Feb. 15) implies that the Steppes of Russia and Ukrain could be the homeland of the PIE speakers and that the migration started about 4500 years ago.

What genetics say?

The genetics also have been used to explain the spread of the languages. In fact, genetics is to know the human ancestry and not the languages they spoke. 'Out of Africa' theory is the product of the modern genetics, which has been objected too, however, we will not entangle ourselves in that endless debate. But the fact remains that the genetics, too, have been used to explain migrations of the PIE speakers. 

Spencer Wells states that these are tenuous efforts to link migrations and languages. Genetic patterns do not provide clear support for their proposed model.

There have been several genetic research papers those deal with genetics and PIE languages. The report appearing in “Science” (Feb. 15) is based on the research of a large team of geneticists led by David Reich and Iosif Lazaridis of Harward Medical School. The DNA samples suggest that the Yamnaya people (DNA obtained from 4 skeletons) could have moved from Steppes 4500 years ago. This paper claims to have connected two far-flunged material cultures to specific genetic signatures. The report states that the team says they spoke a form of Indo-European language. Earlier it was considered that the origins of PIE were 6000 years ago. To meet this gap, hypothetically, it is being proposed that this may be secondary migration!

Another report published in ‘Nature’ too deals with the genomics and spread of the languages. A large team led by Morten E Alentoft examined about 101 sampled ancient individuals from Europe and Central Asia. They also used the archeological evidence of chariot burials (2000-1800 BC) to find the migration pattern. The report relies on the hypothesis of the linguists that ‘the spread of Indo-European languages must have required migration combined with social or demographic dominance and this expansion has been supported by archaeologists pointing to striking similarities in the archaeological record across western Eurasia during the third millennium BC. The genomic evidence for the spread of the Yamnaya people from the Pontic-caspian Steppe to both northern Europe and Central Asia during the early Bronze Age corresponds well with the hypothesized expansion of the IE languages.'

However, report agrees that the genomics cannot find which language those people spoke. Also, we must note here that the cultures do not expand only with the migrations of the people. The practice of the Horse/chariot burials across the civilizations cannot be attributed solely to the movement of the particular set of the people.

The major objection to the above report is that it is heavily dependent on sequencing of very few samples.  The Yamna culture was nomadic and was found in Russia in the Ural region, the Pontic Steppe, dating back to 3600-2300 BC.   It is also known as the Pit Grave Culture, the Ochre Grave Culture and feeds into the Corded Ware Culture. This was not the independent culture but was an admixture of East European or Caucasus hunter-gatherers and near eastern people. So, genetically too, Yamna people were blending of three distinct ancestries. It has not been suggested exactly when and how this blend occurred. If PIE has to be linked with the genetics it will mean that the PIE too was blending of three different languages!

We have seen in the last chapter that the invention of the agriculture dates back to 12000 BC, which could have earlier beginning. Yamna people till Bronze age (2000BC)were pastoralists. Exactly when they moved to spread elsewhere is not known. Europe was already populated by 7000  BC by the hunter-gatherers and food gatherers. There is no evidence that these people were wiped out by any migrating community. There is no evidence to prove that Yamna people had the overwhelming population to effect demographic dominance. By the time Yamna culture came into the existence, Egyptian, Sumerian and Indus culture had reached its pinnacle. They had sophisticated languages and writing system. They had built massive cities and monuments. They had an irrigation system and advanced farming practices in place long before Yamna people (or any hypothetical PIE group) might, though a rare probability, have migrated. 

Agriculture effected in the cultural and linguistic explosion. New vocabulary, well-structured grammar and essential mathematics were the natural outcome to meet the urgent demands of the new lifestyle. It changed religious ideas too. The emergence of the fertility cult can be attributed to the invention and practice of the farming for the livelihood.  It can be easily shown that the languages of the settled agriculturist societies are always advanced over the languages of the pastorals. The linguistic developments are always related to the growing complexities of the societies.

Genetics does not help us to understand the origin of the languages and its spread. The history of the languages is far older than the so-called migration era of the PIE speakers. Genetic mixtures too have a long history than it is assumed. The nomadic era of hunter-food gatherer man begins from at the least 60000 years ago. During this vast span of time, interbreeding between numerous tribes can result in admixture of various genetic pools.

Ability to speak has an ancient origin. Though it is difficult to determine exactly when human started giving meaning to the certain series of the sounds and structured them grammatically, it is certain that the rudimentary languages had developed in every tribe or culture long before the so-called Yamna people set out on a assumed mission to subjugate other cultures to impose their language! Even in the known history we hardly find any example where mighty rulers could impose their languages on the subjugated people unless they outnumbered them.

The cultural and technological exchanges too have an ancient history. Hence the migration theory to prove spread of the IE languages is too weak and unreliable.

Most importantly, migration theories does not help us in solving the very problem of origin of the languages. We have to go into the root to find why languages differ from region to region. We have to see how the distinct languages forms exhibiting distinct characteristics to which we call different language group.


However, we must note from the Genomic reports that the genes carry the regional markers without which it would be impossible to determine the source ancestral genes. The genomics report concludes that the Yamna people were an admixture of East European or Caucasus hunter-gatherers and near eastern people. So, genetically too, Yamna people were blending of three distinct ancestries. Without regional markers, it would be impossible to determine the location of the source genes. 

Monday, February 20, 2017

Ancient Indian Coins tell the cultural history!



In the last the article we had discussed the symbolism on ancient Indian coins from 7th  century BC till 350 BC. During this period we do not find any legends marked on the coins. The reason must be that the coin making system was still in infancy. Mints still were not in practice.

The Advent of Greeks had made an artistically great impact on later coins. Since third century BC onwards busts or images of the kings, their names and legends along with their revered Gods can be seen on both the sides of the coins of the north and central India. Before we enter into the discussion on the symbols and the language along with scripts used on the coins of Greek, Scythian, Bactrian and Indian Kings/republics I would like to state that in Taxila region coins were called “PanNa”.

We are aware that Taxila region (eastern part of Gandhara) is part of the Indus Valley Civilization where sea-farer trading community called Pani’s was settled. Since they were traders the coins issued by them used to be called as PaNa. Till second century BCE coins in that region were called PaNa. It does mean that Pani’s right from Indus culture era (3100 BC) still were in the business. Pani’s were Non-Vedic community from ancient times. We find in Rig Vedic verses how Vedics nourished hatred towards them. However, we also can find that in the era of decline of Vedic religion, the Vedics accepted donations from them as well and composed verses in their praise! 


On Taxila bent bar coins we find six petal flowers. On later the coins we can note the influence of the Greek style in punching the coins.

On the Mauryan coins, before the advent of the Greeks, we find Sun sign been present on all the coins. No legend is marked on them. Also, three arrow sign with Y shape marked between the arrows too remains constant with slight change in the design. Apart from that we can find different Banker Marks embedded on the coins. This does mean that Chandragupta Maurya and his people of Magadha region still remains Sun Worshippers.


We come across one unique coin that has three male (?) figures embedded along with five crescent moons on the obverse side of the coin. The interesting thing is headdress significantly resembles with the Indus headdresses, indicating the Indus cultural continuity. What symbolism appears on the coins are related to Tantra (Agamic) and not Vedic!
  
We do not find any influence of Buddhism on the society till the period of Ashoka. From Ashokan times we find images of Chaitya sign gradually replacing Sun sign suggesting the shift of the religious faith of the kings and the bankers.

During the period of Mauryan Empire, we find various forms of the Prakrit (Gandhari Prakrit on Gandhara coins or Sindhi Prakrit on Taxila coins.) For example, Gandhari “Nekama” in Sindhi Prakrit becomes Negama. The distinct linguistic difference has been well recorded by Cunningham. Though Ashoka coins have used Brahmi script mostly, for northwestern regions he has used Kharoshthi script.

 After fall of the Maurya Empire in Northern India arose many republic states such as Audumbara, Malava, Youdheya, Kuninda etc. The republic coins came into the circulation about 150 BC. In Republic states we find Shaivait faith being in practice in these regions through the images imbibed on the coins.

The scholars consider that the Audumbara Republic was situated in the present Kangra region. Shaivait (Tantric) symbolism seem to be replaced now with the images of Lord Shiva. Tigerskin wrapped Shiva is shown in standing position with his one arm upright is the common image on Audmbara coins. The legend in Pali language “Mahadevasa Rajna Dhaaraaghosasna odumbarisa” is inscribed on the reverse side of the Dharaghosa coins. On the coins of King Mahadeva are shown trident and elephant and on the reverse the legend “Bhagavata Mahadevasa Rajarajna”.


Interestingly, in first BC Audumbara coin, we find Shiva temple image. This could be the first image of the ancient temple that indicates that the simple temple architecture has ancient origins than thought before. It was disputed before by the scholars whether this image belongs to the Shiva Temple or Buddhist shrine/stupa. But the Trident, battle axe and serpent symbols have confirmed that indeed this is the image of the Shiva temple. You may like to read this article...http://www.ijifr.com/pdfsave/28-06-2015446V2-E10-068.pdf

Also from the legend, we can deduce that the term “Bhagavata” originally was not connected with the Vaishnavait cult. Vaishnava cult borrowed many concepts from ancient Pancharatra cult that was completely non-Vedic and was in prominent position until second century A.D.
  
On Kuninda (sometimes called as Kulinda) coins we find the influence of Buddhism along with Shaivism altogether. Kuninda republic is connected with the present region of Satlaj River and the hilly region around it.

On the Kuninda coins, Dhammachakra and Chaitya symbols are embedded. The legends too are in Prakrit language. For example, on Amoghbhuti’s coins, the legend on the reverse side of the coin is “Rajna Kunindasa Amoghabhutisaa Mahaaraajasa”

On some coins Shiva is shown standing, holding a trident in one hand and tiger skin in other. On the backside horn, snake and also is Chaitya sign. The legend is in Prakrit. 


Also, there are many coins found having Bodhi Tree and Bull symbols together showing both the religions were practiced simultaneously in Kuninda republic.

 Yaudheya Republic (or federation) has been in limelight since pre-Alexander era. Yaudheya’s were famous for their bravery and battle skills. They also are mentioned in epic Mahabharata and Astadhyayi of Panini. This indicates that the time of Panini is not as early as commonly thought. They had participated Mahabharata war. The Yaudheya people were Shaivait throughout which reflects on their coinage. 



Yaudheyas were settled between Indus and Gangetic region. Until the times of Rudradaman, Yaudheyas were dominant warrior tribe in North India. On most of the Yaudheya coins, we find the image of Kumar Kartikeya. We find the first trace of Hybrid Sanskrit on Yaudheya coins in form of “Yaudheya ganasya  jaya” (1st Century AD.) Since Yaudheya coins use hybrid Sanskrit, time of Panini can be fixed even later than 1st century AD.

What we significantly can note is that we find nowhere Vedic symbolism. Had there been ever Vedic age, we somewhere should have noticed its presence on the coins. Had Sanskrit been in existence, there should have been its presence on coins as well. We find only developing state of the Sanskrit from Prakrit on Yaudheya coins. Elsewhere, a variety of Prakrits is well present in the legends.


It does mean that highly glorified Vedic era is well-nourished myth having no iota of truth in it. The Vedic presence had been insignificant in political circles throughout the country. The Vedic era seems to have become prominent only after the rise of the Gupta power. In next chapter, we shall see how the symbolism gradually changed to show Vedic presence in Indian coinage.