The Vedas

by Roshen Dalal

  Apart from the PCT supporters, the Russian scholar N.S. Trubetskoy (1890–1938), one of the founders of Eurasianism, who studied Indo-European and knew more than twelve languages, was among those who questioned the very idea of PIE. Trubetskoy instead put forward the ‘sprachbund’ theory of languages developing similarities through contact and influence. The French archaeologist Jean-Paul Demoule, in 1980 and later, has also questioned the existence of PIE and of an Indo-European language.

  Most others accepted it but differed regarding the place and date of the homeland.

  Some broad time schemes, based on suggestions of various scholars, are given below:

  1. Theory of Indo-Hittite as the earliest language

  Pre-PIE or Indo-Hittite, in Anatolia before 6500 BCE

  Archaic PIE in Greece 6500–6000 BCE

  6500–5000 BCE, PIE spoken in most of Europe (In stage 2, 5000–3000 BCE, the language spread to the steppes.)

  2. PIE: 4500 BCE

  Pre-Anatolian breaks away, before 3500 BCE

  Pre-Tocharian separates, though it also has some later traits

  Pre-Celtic and Pre-Italic separate, before 2500 BCE; Germanic may have intially separated at the same time but had later influences of Celtic, Baltic, and Slavic, so this is uncertain

  Pre-Greek separates: 2500–2000 BCE

  Indo-Iranian separates: by 2000 BCE; common Indo-Iranian at the latest dates to circa 1700 BCE

  3. Phylogenetic linguistic model

  This is based on the work of Russel D. Gray and Quentin D. Atkinson, of New Zealand, both with a background in biology and psychology. This analysis studied 87 IE languages and used evolutionary biology to construct a computational method.

  Pre-Anatolian: 6700 BCE

  Pre-Tocharian: 5900 BCE

  Pre-Greek/Armenian: circa 5300 BCE

  Pre-Indo-Iranian/Albanian: circa 4900 BCE

  Ancestors of pre-Balto Slavic, pre-Italo-Celtic Germanic: 4500 BCE

  4. PCT theory

  Most languages had developed and spread, at the latest by 10,000 BCE.

  MIGRATION THEORIES

  The spread of the Indo-European languages has usually been related to the migration of people, at the dates indicated above. These people were not genetically similar but are presumed to have once spoken the same language (PIE) and to have had certain cultural similarities. As the language spread to different regions due to the migration of this linguistic group, it changed and several languages arose. Where was its original home? And did such a migration take place at all?

  There is no agreement on the answers to these questions but the main views are summarized below. Before looking at the theories of the original homeland, we will look at concepts of the spread or diffusion of languages.

  LANGUAGE DIFFUSION

  How languages diverge or converge are aspects of linguistic analysis. Theories of language diffusion are usually part of cultural diffusion theories. The Indo-European theory includes cultural diffusion—not merely language but also technology, ideas and styles spread to different regions. The Indo-Europeans are believed to have common socio-economic aspects as well as similarities in types of deities, in warfare, the use of the chariot and the horse, among others. To understand language diffusion, aspects of the environment as depicted in the language are also assessed.

  At one time, conquest was believed to be a key aspect in the spread of language and culture. Later, the focus was on migration. Both conquest and migration can lead to cultural diffusion but these are no longer seen as the only—or even the main—methods by which languages and culture spread. Cultural diffusion can also take place via trade, merchants, and employment of artisans from distant lands or of mercenary soldiers. Explorers and diplomats can diffuse ideas. Diffusion can also take place when two groups live adjacent to each other and there is an interchange of various sorts, including marriage. Known as direct diffusion, this was more common in ancient times than indirect diffusion that takes place through an intermediary. The American linguist Benjamin W. Fortson points out that it is impossible to say whether a common linguistic feature in two adjacent areas is the result of development from a single language or of innovation in one region, later adopted by others. This could also apply to cultural diffusion and needs to be borne in mind while examining similarities in language and culture.

  Another aspect to be kept in focus is that a social group need not form a linguistic group and, alternatively, that people speaking one language may belong to several different social groups—as is usually the case today.

  LANGUAGE AND GENETICS

  A problem here is the confusion over linguistic groups and race. While Max Müller in his later writings, and several others held that Indo-European was a group of languages not connected with race, others identified Indo-Europeans as a racial group. This evoked both nationalistic and imperialistic responses. Nationalists in several countries were against the concept that their culture was created by migrants. In the past, such theories have been misused by Hitler in his concept of the superior ‘Aryan’ race.

  Recent genetic studies have been used by both linguists and archaeologists to arrive at ancient migration patterns. Luca Cavalli-Sforza, a geneticist of Italian origin who moved to the US in 1970, is a pioneer in the field of ‘genetic geography’, linking genes with patterns of migration, culture, and language. While genetics has been linked to race and nationality, Sforza does not connect genes with race, and is in fact totally against the concept of race.

  While language and race can easily be separated, when one talks of a group speaking the same language—migrating and transporting their language and culture with them—it does become difficult to distinguish between a language group and a race or genetically identifiable group. However, in general, Indo-European refers only to languages, not to homogenous groups of people.

  INDIGENOUS ORIGIN: CURRENT TRENDS

  The current trend all over the world is to seek an indigenous origin for language and culture. This is the case in India and in several other countries. Some examples are given here.

  In the context of Scotland, Katherine Forsyth, a British historian who specialized in Celtic studies, points out:

  Scottish archaeologists are now freeing themselves from the notion of recurring waves of people sweeping across the country, all but submerging older population groups, and are thus able to accord the indigenous inhabitants of Scotland a more active role in linguistic and cultural change. This fundamental shift is part of a more general trend in archaeological theory to down-play the role of invasion and wholesale population replacement in prehistoric cultural change.

  Several scholars also propose an insider’s view for Greek. For instance, Ernst Risch, a Swiss professor of Indo-European studies, stated that the Greek dialects arose in Greece from Proto-Greek and several dialects developed as the language spread over a large area. This explanation is now accepted by many.

  While Proto-Germanic is generally thought to be an Indo-European language—actually believed to be the originator of the Germanic languages English and German—there are also theories that pre-Proto-German was different from PIE.

  THE HOMELAND QUESTION

  The concept of a homeland for PIE presumes that: (1) PIE did exist; (2) its time frame can be correctly estimated; and (3) language probably spread through migration or conquest, or through certain activities such as farming.

  Despite the differences of opinion outlined above, many archaeologists and linguists believe that such a homeland did exist. The relationship between linguistics and archaeology is sometimes circular. The archaeologist depends on linguistic theories while searching for an appropriate culture, while the linguist seeks support for his theories from archaeologists. Linguistic theories, referred to above, have inspired several archaeologists to attempt to equate a Bronze Age archaeological culture with the early homeland, using the clues provided by linguists. The most likely date for the existence of a PIE homeland is taken as the period 5000–3000 B
CE.

  The search for a homeland is based on several factors including the cultural hints provided by the partially reconstructed PIE language. Such reconstruction indicates that the PIE people had a patrilineal society, with rights and duties inherited through the father. Women lived with their husband’s family after marriage. Groups of people lived together under a chieftain, who had some authority over them.

  The words for mountain, river, lake or sea, and for marshy land, are reconstructed, as well as that for boat, indicating that the PIE region was not a desert nor a totally flat plain. Among the names of wild animals, the words for bear, fox, otter, beaver, wolf, lynx, elk or deer, stag, horse, mouse, hare, and hedgehog have been reconstructed. Birds known included goose, crane, duck, eagle, falcon or hawk, sparrow, quail, thrush, vulture, blackbird, crow, raven, jay, kite, pheasant, stork, cuckoo, and possibly owl. (Linguists disagree on some of these animals and birds.) There are words for snake, turtle, frog, fish, and some specific fish including trout and salmon. Bees, honey and wax were also known, as were fly, wasp, hornet and louse, its egg or nit, and the flea. Among domestic animals were cattle (also cow, ox, steer), sheep, pig (and boar, sow, piglet), goat, and dog. Though numerous theories centre on the absence or presence of the horse, from the reconstructed language it is not clear if the horse was domesticated in the earliest times. The use of the horse was a characteristic of Indo-Europeans, as indicated by later available texts and inscriptions. Chariots were also used. Yet, others point out that use of the horse and chariot was not confined to Indo-Europeans.

  These animals are found throughout Europe and much of Asia, though the beaver does not occur in Anatolia and Greece. The wild animals indicate that the PIE people lived in partly forested regions. Plant names are difficult to reconstruct, as very few are found in both western and eastern Indo-European languages. Birch is found in six branches; the next most common are willow, ash, and oak but these are mainly in the European branches of Indo-European. Hittite and Irish have a cognate word for hawthorn. In both cultures, hawthorn was used in rituals. Five branches have a word that means beech or elder. In the European languages, words for elm, juniper, alder, apple, hazel, and cherry have also been reconstructed. PIE words exist for berry, bean, and snow; the last is believed to indicate a temperate climate but this is not definite, as snowy mountains such as the Himalayas could be known, even if the people generally lived in the plains.

  There seem to have been some common burial practices, and these have been projected back to the PIE period. Though details differ, it is thought that kings and warriors were buried in individual tombs, covered with earth mounds. Cremation was sometimes practised in the Indo-Iranian world and as a special honour for Scandinavian heroes. Grave goods buried wth the dead included sacrificial animals.

  Several Indo-European groups have some common religious practices, for instance, the worship of sky, earth and other nature deities, and fire sacrifices. All older Indo-European religions were polytheistic but this would be true of all religions across the world. Very few names of deities can be reconstructed in PIE. The general word for deity is from the root of the word ‘shine’; the Vedic deva, Latin deus, Old Irish dia and Lithuanian dievas all come from the same root. The Greek theos, though it sounds similar, has a different root. There are also similarities in myths.

  The French philologist G. Dumezil was among those who revealed some common aspects of the various Indo-European groups.

  He believed in an Indo-European tripartite scheme of ‘fonctions’ that applied to social classes, deities, and other aspects. John Brough, a British professor of Sanskrit, is among the critics of this theory and says it can as well apply to the god of the Old Testament, as indeed every deity has these different aspects.

  The search for a homeland is thus based on the quest for an archaeological culture of the appropriate date, with the characteristic culture believed to belong to PIE.

  One problem is whether an archaeological assemblage that occurs across several sites, generally termed an archaeological culture, can be associated with a group of people. For instance, a particular pottery type can be found over a wide area but does not necessarily indicate a single group of people. Thus, a widespread change in pottery can take place without a change in the existing social group.

  However, as Renfrew points out: ‘If there were indeed major movements of early populations, which might have been responsible for this language distribution, then they should be reflected in the archaeological record.’ In what way though? If pottery is not a reliable criterion, what other aspects could reflect this? Pottery as well as other artefacts could have been obtained through trade, or a particular artefact or pottery style adopted from another culture. Despite the uncertainty in date, type of culture, and what pottery or other artefacts, and structure or graves may indicate, various homelands have been suggested.

  EUROPE

  Several early and later scholars suggested a European homeland, dating to the Neolithic period. Before looking at particular suggestions, we will briefly survey the time frame of the European Neolithic. In Europe, the first evidence of agriculture and settled village life emerged around 7000 BCE. There were several different Neolithic cultures across the region. Radiocarbon dates suggest that Mesolithic cultures coexisted. Two major theories are that farming here developed independently from hunter-gatherer communities, or that it spread with migrating farmers from the region of Anatolia. The broad time frame for the Neolithic in Europe is between 7000 and 5500 BCE in south-east Europe; before 6000 BCE in the central and west Mediterranean; around 5500 BCE in central Europe; and about 4500 BCE in north-west Europe. The last region was associated with megaliths.

  Among these various cultures, Linear pottery culture or LBK in central and north Europe is typified by a characteristic decorated pottery. It can be dated to 5500 BCE and later. It is often thought to result from the colonization of farmers from south-east Europe, though scholars such as Alasdair Whittle, professor of archaeology at Cardiff University and a specialist in the Neolithic period, feel it was an indigenous development. In 1902, the German linguist and archaeologist Gustav Kossina looked at north central Europe as the homeland of PIE. This could have been the core area of the Corded Ware (CW) culture, which began around 3000 BCE and is believed by some scholars to have spread through migration and to represent the Indo-Europeans. Kossina felt that the Linear pottery of Germany and Holland was displaced by Indo-European pressure from the north, and moved south and east, followed by the people of northern Europe who used Corded Ware. The CW culture was actually widespread across Europe from Switzerland in the north to the eastern Baltic, and from the Rhine to the east of the Vistula. Though the culture had regional differences, these people seem to have largely been cattle herders who engaged in some amount of farming and practised burial. Their core area could alternatively be between the western Ukraine to the south-east of the Baltic, or in part of Poland. Around this area, there were related cultures. In 1949, the Austrian linguist and anthropologist Wilhelm Schmidt proposed the theory of two waves of colonizers reaching Europe from the east. In 1960, P. Bosch-Gimpera, a Mexican archaeologist of Spanish origin, saw Central Europe as the homeland but felt that the IE people originated in the early Neolithic period, and spread to different areas in Europe in the later Neolithic. He equated their spread with that of various Danubian cultures. Marek Zvelebil, an archaeologist and historian of Czech origin, looked at northern Europe as the homeland. In 1995, he put forward what is known as the ‘Neolithic creolisation’ theory, in which migrating Neolithic famers mixed with indigenous hunter-gatherers in this region, resulting in the development of Indo-European.

  SOUTH RUSSIAN STEPPES

  The German philologist Otto Schrader (1855–1919) put forward the theory of a homeland in what is called the Pontic–Caspian steppes, that is, the region of South Russia near the Caspian and Aral seas, north of the Black Sea. The horse was native to the region, and Schrader felt that the Indo-European peo
ple domesticated as well as ate the horse.

  In 1926, in his book The Aryans, Gordon Childe zeroed in on South Russia as the homeland after comparing various archaeological cultures. In a later book, Prehistoric Migrations in Europe (1949), Childe believed that the horse-drawn chariot and the war horse were related to the spread of Indo-European. He, among others, felt that the people of the Celtic Urnfield culture of the late Bronze Age were the main warrior migrants.

  In the search for a homeland, the work of the Lithuanian archaeologist Marija Gimbutas has been influential. Gimbutas located the homeland in the South Russian steppes, and termed the archaeological complex the Kurgan culture, after the burial mounds found in the region. The Kurgan actually includes a number of Copper and Bronze Age cultures in the southern Russian steppes near the Black Sea and middle Volga that have burial mounds known as kurgans, from the original Russian term, which is the same. In 1970, Gimbutas wrote that, based on archaeology and the type of culture surmised from the recreation of PIE words and terms, ‘The Kurgan culture seems the only remaining candidate for being Proto-Indo-European.’ She used arguments from linguistics, based on common words, and significant features such as the kurgans or burial mounds that seemed to reflect Indo-European burial practices. She felt that excavations of Kurgan cultures indicated a pastoral economy, hierarchical society, indulgence in warfare, animal sacrifice, worship and/or use of the horse, existence of wheeled vehicles, and worship of a solar deity.

  Gimbutas suggested successive waves of kurgan expansion, which could be related to various cultures, including the CW that Kossina had first referred to. The fourth expansion wave, she felt, influenced the Vucedol culture (3000–2200 BCE) in the Danube region, named after the site of Vucedol in Croatia. According to her, the Yamnaya culture then mixed with the Vucedol, leading to the Bell-Beaker culture. These people then spread over Europe in the second half of the 3rd millennium BCE, even reaching the British isles. However, archaeologists are not agreed on the origins of the Bell-Beaker culture.