Language history of Bharat, itihas bharati, circa 3rd millennium BCE

[Guest guest]

Srinivasan Kalyanaraman <kalyan97@g...> wrote:

Language history of Bharat, itihas bharati, circa 3rd millennium BCE

 

Abstract. The burden of this monograph is: arya and ana_rya were not

distinct and isolated categories of languages or speakers of distinct

languages. Thus, sanskrit and mleccha were two variants, one was a

processed grammatically correct dialect, the other was a cluster of

naturally evolved forms of Prakrit-s, des'i_bha_s.a_. This explains

why Mahavi_ra and Buddha conveyed their doctrines in mleccha, in

dialects called Pa_li and Ardhama_gadhi_. In this perspective, the

later-day linguistic classification of language families becomes

irrelevant at worst and of limited interpretative value for the

history of hindu civilization, at best.

 

It is suggested that a reconstruction of the languages of saptasindhu

region or the linguistic area circa 3rd millennium BCE, may be

attempted by reviewing the literary traditions of the historical

periods.

 

R.gveda refers to the creation of language by craftsmen (ka_ru):

 

sam iva titauna_ punanto yatra dhi_ra_ manasa_ va_cam akrata

atra_ sakha_yah sakhya_ni ja_nate bhadrais.a_m laks.mi_r nihita_dhi

va_ci

 

RV 10.71.2 When the wise create Speech through wisdom winnowing (it)

as (men winnow) barley with a sieve, then friends know friendship;

good fortune is placed upon their word. [Friendship: sakha_yah: sa,

khya, sama_nakhya_na_ = stus.e, who possess knowledge of the

s'a_stras].

 

Alternative translation: Where, like men cleaning corn flour in a

sieve, the wise in spirit have created language; there, friends see

and recognize the marks of friendship. Their speech retains the

imprinted beauty of blessing.

 

The language created by craftsmen is echoed in Va_tsya_yana's list of

64 arts which includes mlecchita vikalpa 'cypher writing' (of

metalsmiths, mleccha).

 

Na_t.yas'a_stra (cica 100 BCE, cf. Manmohan Ghose, 1934, The date of

the Bharata Na_t.yas'a_stra in Journal of the Department of Letters,

Vol. 25, University of Calcutta, pp. 51-52) which is

sa_rvavarn.ikaveda, a veda to people of all varn.a, uses the term

bha_s.a_ 'language, speech' to refer to the varieties of Prakrits,

while grammarians may use terms such as apas'abda, apabhrams'a (or

des'i_bha_s.a_, 'local, regional language'). The text lists seven

bha_s.a_-s or major dialects as: ma_gadhi_, avantija_, pra_cya_,

s'u_raseni_, ardhama_gadhi, Ba_lhi_ki_ and Da_kin.a_tya_; six

vibha_s.a_-s or minor dialects, perhaps of vanecara: s'a_bari_,

a_bhi_ri_, ca_nda_li_, s'aka_ri_, dra_vidi_ and od.ri_.

(Na_t.yas'a_stra, Chap. 7, verses, 48, 50). The text (ch.1, verse 12)

includes a list of 100 sons of Bharata who brought the divine drama to

the loka; the names include: ambas.t.aka, saindhava, taitila,

sukerala, s'ambara, ma_gadha, ugra, tus.a_ra, ka_liya. Many

commentators of Sanskrit texts qualify with iti bha_s.a_yam 'thus it

is in the local language'. Thus, bha_s.a_ meant Prakrit-s.

 

In compiling this monograph, I owe a debt of gratitude to Madhav

Deshpande for the insights provided in two works:

 

1. Madhav M. Deshpande, 1993, Sanskrit and

Prakritâ€"Sociolinguistic

Issues, Delhi, Motilal Banarsidass

2. Madhav M. Deshpande, 1979, Socioliguistic attitudes in India

â€" An

historical reconstruction, Ann Arbor, Karoma Publishers Inc.

 

Who were the speakers of Prakrits? Bharat was essentially a

Prakrit-speaking nation, with Prakrit languages as the mother tongues

of most people. Rajasekhara's Ka_vyami_ma_msa (ca. 900 CE) notes that

La_t.a spoke Prakrit, poets of Ra_jasthan, upper Punjab and

Bha_da_naka were fluent in Apabhrams'a, poets of Avanti, Vindhya and

Das'apura preferred Pais'a_ci_, while a poet in Madhyades'a was fluent

in all languages. (cited in Deshpande, 1993, p. 91). According to a

hypothesis yet to be proven, of SB Joshi and Franklin Southworth,

Marathi probably developed from a pidgin form of Prakrit spoken by a

predominantly Dravidian population. (SB Joshi, 1951, Etymology of

place-names pat.t.i-hat.t.i, some observations on the history of

Maharashtra and Karnataka, Annals of the Bhandarkar Oriental Research

Institute, vol. 32, pp.; 41-56; 1952, Marha_t.i_ Samskr.ti_, ka_hi_

samsya_, Pune, Antar Bharati Prakashan; Southworth, Franklin, C.,

1971, Detecting prior creolization, an analysis of the historical

origins of Marathi, in Pidginization and Creolization of Languages,

Ed. by Dell Hymes, pp. 255-273, Cambridge University Press).

 

Gaud.avaho (verse 65) of Va_kpatira_ja notes:

 

ummilai la_yan.n.am payayaccha_ya_e sakkaya-vaya_n.am

sakkaya-sakka_rukkarisan.en.a payayassa vi paha_vo

 

The beauty of Sanskrit words blossos with a tinge of Prakrits. The

effectiveness of Prakrit also increase by the elevating process of

Sanskritization. (Trans. by Deshpande, 1993, p. 35).

 

The world (loka) used kassati, dissati a_n.apayati, vat.t.ati and

vad.d.hati while the Sanskrit forms were kr.s.ati,

dr.s'yatea_jna_payati, vartate and vardhate. (Maha_bha_s.ya (K), vol.

1, p. 259). Arya and asura who were also arya (noble). Patanjali says

that asura used Prakritized form of the Sanskrit he arayah he arayah,

mispronouncing the phrase as helayo helayo. He also notes that asura

normally spoke Prakrit not only in normal contexts but also in ritual

contexts; the mispronunciation leads to the defeat of the asura: te

'sura_ helayo helay aiti kurvantah para_babhu_vuh tasma_d bra_hman.ena

na mlecchitavai na_pabha_s.itavai mleccho ha va_ es.a yad apas'abdah

Maha_bha_s;.ya (K), vol. 1, p. 2, p. 10-11. This leads Deshpande to

surmise: "This points to the fact that a very large segment of the

population was a monolingual Prakrit-speaking communit, who had no

ability to switch to Sanskrit in any context" (1993, p. 26).

 

Ardhama_gadhi is an ariya language; it was a language appropriate to

the a_risa (sages, Skt. a_rs.a) and the speakers of ardhama_gadhi were

ariya people (bha_sa_riya): se kim tam bha_sa_riya_? bha_sa_riya_ je

n.am addhama_gaha_e bha_sa_e bha_sinti jattha vi ya n.am bambhi_ livi_

pavattai â€" PS, p5.2, p. 38. See also SM Katre, 1964, Prakrit

languages

and their contributions to Indian culture, Poona, Deccan College, p.

15. Jaina commentatord define pra_krit as the original language,

pra_kr.ta 'created earlier', while Sanskrit grammarians define Prakrit

as derived from Sanskrit. Stha_na_ngasu_tra refers to two types of

language: sakkata or sakkaya and pa_gata or pa_yaya. Pa_li texts also

claim Pa_li as: sabba-satta_na_m mu_labha_sa_ 'the original language

of all the beings'. (cf. BC Law, 1933, A history of Pali literature,

vols. 1-2, Calcutta, Calcutta University Press, vol. 1, p.x). In the

Buddha and Jaina traditions, ma_gadhi_ and ardhama_gadhi_, both

dominant dialects of Prakrit, were recognized as the distinguished

languages. K.R. Norman (1980, Pali literature, Wiesbaden, Otto

Harrassowitz: p. 67) suggests that Pa_li and Ardhama_gadhi_ were the

original language of the Buddha and Jaina canons and the original

language of all beings: "I would suggest that the idea of languages

developing from Ma_gadhi_ is a clear indication of the state of

affairs in north India during the time of the Mauryan empire in the

fourth and third centuries BCE, and I think that the idea of language

development expressed in the Buddhist and Jain texts must have been

arising during, and very probably because of, that empire. During the

Mauryan period Ma_gadhi_, the language of As'oka's capital

Pa_t.aliputra, was the administrative language of north India, and it,

or a modified form of it, was inscribed all over India to make

As'oka's decrees known to his subjects. I would, therefore, suggest

that Ma_gadhi_ sabbasatta_na_m mu_labha_sa_ was a (fairly) correct

statement as far as north India was concerned in the fourth and third

centuries BCE, and it was natural that a statement which As'oka might

have made about his administrative language should be adopted by the

Buddhist missionaries when they went to Ceylon. A similar use for

missionary purposes would doubtless account for the Jain adoption of

the same phrase."

 

Deshpande adds (1993, pp. 15-16): "The rise in the prestige of

Sanskrit must have begun slowly after the fall of the Mauryas at the

hands of the Bra_hman.a Pus.yamitra S'unga, and it gradually contnued

to rise in such a way that the royal inscriptions in India gradually

changed from Prakrit to Sanskrit. The S'aka rulers began using

Sanskrit, which was also used extensively by the Gupta kings.While the

early Va_ka_t.aka inscriptions are in Prakrit, region by region they

gradually change to Sanskrit. Also while the early Pallava

inscriptions are in Prakrit, the late Pallava inscriptions are in

Sanskrit. Nowhere do we see a shift from Sanskrit to Prakrit in the

history of Indian inscriptions."

 

Na_t.yas'a_stra (17.50) notes that ardhama_gadhi_ was a language of

cet.a, ra_japutra and merchants. "The Pali tradition calls the Pa_li

language by the name ma_gadhi_ and claims that Buddha spoke this

language and that this language is the original language of all beings

(sabbasatta_nam mu_labha_sa_)."

 

Bhagavaisutta: "O Lord, in which language do the gods speak? Which

language is the distinguished language? O Gotama, gods speak in this

ardhama_gadhi_ language." deva_ n.am bhante kayara_e bha_sa_e

bha_santi kayara_ va_ bha_sa_ bha_sijjama_n.i_ visijjai? goyama_,

deva_n.am addhama_gahie bha_sa_e bha_santi sa_ vi ya n.am

addhama_gahi_ bha_sa_ bha_sijjama_n.i_ visijjai: Bhavataisutta,

A_gamoddha_rasamiti Edition, p. 231. Cited by .B. Gandhi (1967, Three

Apabhrms'a works of Jinadattasu_ri, Baroda, Oriental Institute: 86.

Pan.n.avan.a_sutta notes that ariya speak ardhama_gadhi_ and write in

bra_hmi_ script. Samava_yangasutta notes that Maha_vi_ra used

ardhama_gadhi_ language to communicate ariya dhamma: bhagaam ca n.am

addhama_gahie bha_sa_e dhammam a_cikkhai sa_ vi ya n.am addhama_gahi_

bha_sa_ bha_sijjama_n.i_ tesim savvesim a_riyaman.a_riya_n.am

duppayacauppaya-miya-pasu-pakkhi-sari_siva_n.am appappan.o

hiya-siva-suhada_ya-bha_satta_e parin.amai -- Samava_yangasutta,

A_gamoddha_rasamiti Edition, p. 60, cited in L.B. Gandhi (1967:85).

"While he was speaking ardhama_gadhi_ it was automatically transformed

into different languages which were pleasant, wholesome and beneficial

to all the arya, non-arya, animals, birds and snakes." (Deshpande,

1993, p. 14).

 

Deshpande interprets Manusmr.ti (10.45) as connoting that even those

who were not arya socially spoke ariya languages: "All those tribes in

this world, which are excluded from the community of those born from

the mouth, the arms, the thighs, and the feet of Brahman, are called

dasyu, whether they speak the language of th emleccha or that of

arya."

 

Pa_n.ini refers to bha_s.a_ 'language' and chandas 'language of the

vedic texts'; this distinction assumes that Sanskrit was the prakr.ti

(primal matter) which transformed (vikr.ti) into a degenerative state.

Later grammarians would distinguish between Sanskrit and the

degenerate versions of Prakr.t-s â€" the lingua franca -- though used

by

rulers like Maha_padma, a s'u_dra providing these degenerate versions

the prestige needed for communications through epigraphs or through

pravacana-s of learned savants. This language history may explain why

the ks.atriya savants, Buddha and Mahavira, used the lingua franca to

communicate their understanding of dharma (dhamma) â€" ariya dhamma or

ariya magga, i.e. noble doctrine or noble path. Gotama Buddha tells

his monks to teach the doctrine in saka_ya nirittiya_ (in their own

language or dialect).

 

Madhav Deshpande cites Dan.d.in's view expressed in his Ka_vya_dars'a:

"In literature, the languages of A_bhi_ras etc. are considered to be

apabhrams'a (i.e. the term is not applied to Prakrits). On the other

hand, in the (Brahmanical) sciences (such as Sanskrit grammar),

anything other than Sanskrit is labeled apabhrams'a."

[a_bhira_di-girah ka_vyes.v apabhrms'a iti smr.ta_h s'a_stres'u

samskr.ta_d anyad apabhrams'atayoditam â€" Ka_vya_dars'a 1.36] I think

Deshpande is imputing his own world-view in the translation. The text

of Dan.d.in simply says that anything other than Sanskrit is

apabhrams'a, such as the parole of a_bhi_ra (cognate with a_yar-kula

in Tamil tradition). There was no implication of hierarchy or

puritanism involve in this statement of Dan.d.in. Apabhrams'a

(substandard) is a word which lacks a proper grammatical process

(samska_ra gun.a varjita) because of speaker's incapacity; such a word

signifies meaning only by reminding one of the proper Sanskrit word.

(Bhartr.hari, Va_kyapadi_ya, 1.139-146). This is a clear enunciation

that Sanskrit is genetically linked to the Prakrit-s which had gained

prestige and acceptance as literary languages, in As'vaghos.a,

Buddhist poet's work and in many works of Sanskrit dramatists..

 

"The Pan.n.avan.a_sutta, about the first century BCE, has a long

section (p. 35-37) describing the Jaina conceptions of 'aryan' and

'mleccha' or non-aryan...Here the discussion begins with a list of

peoples whom the Jainas considered non-aryan or mleccha. This list

includes: saga, javan.a, cila_ya, babbara, ka_ya, murun.d.a, ud.d.a,

bhadaga, nin.n.aga, pakkan.iya, kulakkha, gon.d.a, simhala, pa_rasa,

gondhod.amba, damila, cillala, pulinda, meya, palhava, ma_lava,

gaggara, a_bha_siya, n.akka, ci_na, lhasiya, khasa, kha_siya ned.ura,

man.d.ha, d.ombilaga, lau_sa, bau_sa, kekkaya, arava_ga, hu_n.a,

romaga, bharuga, ruya, gandha_ha_raga, ajjala, pa_sa, malaya, and

mu_yali."

 

This is a remarkable, pan-bharatiya list of regions extending from

ga_ndha_ra in the west to khasa in the east, from damila in the south

across gon.d.a to gaggara in the north.

 

Compared to this core of Bharat, the arya according to

Pan.n.avan.a_sutta are only of two kinds, iddhipatta_riya =

r.ddhipra_pta_rya 'exalted' and anid.d.hipatta_riya =

anr.ddhipra_pta_rya 'non-exalted', both kinds including: arahanta,

cakkavat.t.i, baladeva, va_sudeva, ca_ran.a and vijja_hara

(vidhya_dhara). (Deshpande, 1993, p. 10), who could be subdivided by

region (ks.etra), birth (ja_ti), clan (kula), function (karma),

profession (s'ilpa), language (bha_s.a), wisdom (jna_na), realization

(dars'ana) and conduct (caritra).

 

The ja_ti-ariya listed in Pan.n.avan.a_sutta are: ambat.t.ha, kalinda,

videha, vedaga, hariya and cumcun.a. The clans are: ugga (ugra),

bhoga, rain.n.a (ra_janya), ikkha_ga (iks.va_ku), n.a_ta (jna_ta) and

koravva (kauravya). Mahavira was born in n.a_ta clan buddha was an

okka_ka (ikkha_ga).

 

The Prakrit-speaking world according to the Jaina tradition included

and extended beyond the A_rya_varta. The Ariya region accoding to the

Jaina texts extended from the Sindhu river in the west to Bengal in

the east. The region of Brahma_varta according to manusmr.ti (2.21-22)

was the region which lay between the two rivers, Sarasvati_ and

Dr.s.advati_ and the region between the Himalayas and the Vindhyas

extending as far as the eastern and the western oceans was called

A_rya_varta. The region beyond brahma_varta had many mleccha.

According to the Lawbook of Vis.n.u (Gharpure, JR, 1946, English

translation of Smr.ticandrika_, a_hnikaka_n.d.a, The collection of

Hindu Law Texts, Vol. XXVIII, Bombay: 14): "The country where the

adjustment of the four varn.as does not exist, such region should be

known as the mlecchades'a; and the other has been stated as

a_rya_varta."

 

The regions covered are: magadha, anga, vanga, kalinga, ka_si_,

kosala, kuru, kusat.t.a, panca_la, jangala, surat.t.ha, videha,

kosambi_, san.d.illa, malaya, vacha, accha, dasan.n.a, cedi_,

sindhusovi_ra, su_rasen.a, bhangi_, vat.t.a, kun.a_la, la_d.ha and

keyaiad.d.ha. Deshpande cites Baudha_yanadharmas'a_stra (1.1.32-33)

which cites outer regions of a_rya_varta (which lies to the east of

the a_dars'a mountains, to the west of ka_laka forest, to the south of

Himalayas and north of Vindhyas): "The inhabitants of a_narta of anga,

of magadha, of sura_s.t.ra, of the deccan, of upavr.t, of sindhu and

sauvi_ra, are of mixed origins. He who has visited the countries of

the a_rat.t.as, ka_raskaras, pun.d.ras, sauvi_ras, vangas, kalingas,

or pranu_nas shall offer a punastoma or a sarvapr.s.thi_ sacrifice for

purification." Deshpande notes how seven of the eight regions listed

here as 'impure' are included in the Jaina list of aryan regions which

is a more expansive area extending from ga_ndha_ra to vanga, i.e. the

entire region between the himalayas and the vindhyas.

 

Mleccha as the lingua franca of Bharat

 

Emeneau said: "[vocabulary loans from Dravidian into Indo-Aryan] are

in fact all merely 'suggestions.' Unfortunately, all areal etymologies

are in the last analysis unprovable, are 'acts of faith', ...It is

always possible, e.g. to counter a suggestion of borrowing from one of

the indigenous language families by suggesting that there has been

borrowing in the other direction." (Emeneau, MB, 1980, Language and

Linguistic Area, Stanford, Stanford University Press, p. 177).

 

Linguistic studies governed by such 'acts of faith', will continue

speculating. Kuiper, for example, found that 'the vast majority of

the R.gvedc loan words belong to the spheres of domestic and

agricultural life. They belong not only to the popular speech... but

to the specific language of an agrarian population.' (Kuiper, FBJ,

1955, p. 185). Kuiper says that there are 380 loans in the R.gveda;

Thieme says that there are no loans at all.

 

These 'acts of faith' operating in linguistics, leads Edwin Bryant to

conclude: "The hypothesis of a pre-Indo-Aryan linguistic substratum

remains a perfectly acceptable way of explaining the existence of the

non-Indo-European features in Sanskrit. Particularly significant in

this regard is the non-Indo-Aryan nature of the terms for the flora of

the Northwest. But this is not the only model. As I have attempted to

outline, the possibility of spontaneous development for many of the

innovated syntactical features, coupled with the possibility of an

adstratum relationship between Draidian and Sanskrit for features that

are undoubtedly borrowings, are the most obvious alternative

possibilities. In conclusion, in my opinion, the theory of Indo-Aryan

migrations into the Indian subcontinent must be primarily established

without doubt ON OTHER GOUNDS (emphasis in original) to be fully

conclusive. The apparent 'evidence' of a linguistic substratum in

Indo-Aryan, in and of itself, cannot be used as a decisive arbitrator

in the debate over Indo-Aryan origins." (Bryant, Edwin F., 1999,

Linguistic substrata and the indigenous Aryan debate, in: Johannes

Bronkhorst and Madhav M. Deshpande, Aryan and Non-Aryan in South Asia,

Harvard Oriental Series, Vol. 3, Cambridge, p. 80).

 

Fine to talk of substrata, adstrata and borrowings in linguistics.

But, for the Aryan question, linguistic analyses are not necessary and

sufficient condition.

 

Let us take a look at what the ancient writers in Bharat had to say

about the language situation in various parts of the country. Manu

notes (10.45):

 

mukhaba_hu_rupajja_na_m ya_ loke ja_tayo bahih

mlecchava_cas' ca_ryava_cas te sarve dasyuvah smr.ta_h

 

This shows a two-fold division of dialects: arya speech and mleccha

speech. The language spoken was an indicator of social identity.

Hence, Manu says that everyone is a barbarian dasyu, whether he spoke

arya or mleccha tongues. Maha_bha_s.ya (Vol. i, p.2) of Patanjali

however, notes that learning Sanskrit grammar was necessary for one

not to become a mleccha: tasma_d bra_hman.ena na mlecchitavai..

mleccha_ ma_ bhu_mety adhyeyam vya_karan.am.

 

Hence, it is natural for Vidura to convey a message to Yudhishthira in

mleccha tongue while describing the technicalities involved in the

la_ks.a_gr.ha (the palace of lac): kincic ca viduren.okto

mlechava_ca_si pa_n.d.ava (0011350061, electronic text of Muneo

Tokunaga based on BORI critical edition).

 

Thus, we have two language groups mentioned: a_rya and mleccha, the

former is grammatically correct Sanskrit, the other is the des'i or

lingua franca (not unlike the words glossed in Hemacandra's

Des'i_na_mama_la_).

 

The existence of the two categories of speech finds support in the

Jaina tract, Pan.n.avan.a_sutta (Pt. I, pp. 35 ff; cf. Deshpande,

Madhav M., 1979, Sociolinguistic attitudes in India. An historical

reconstruction, Ann Arbor: Karoma Publishers, inc. pp. 43 ff.). After

providing a long list of mleccha peoples, mostly living outside of

a_rya_varta in the region of northern Bharat stretching from Gujarat

to Assam, the text identifies two categories: ariya and

milakkhu/an.a_riya. In su_tra 56 of Aupapa_tikasu_tra (=

Ovava_iyasutta, p.53), Mahavira speaks about dhamma in ardhama_gadhi_

language: addhama_gaha_e bha_sa_e bha_sai ariha_ dhammam parikahei.

The explanation of dhamma is made to ariya and an.a_riya (tesim

savvesim a_riyaman.la_riya_n.am... dhammam a_ikkhai. Clearly, both

ariya and milakkhu speakers could comprehend ardhama_gadhi language

use by Mahavira. The text notes that the words spoken by Mahavira got

transformed for ariya and mleccha into their own mother-tongues:

 

sa_ vi ya n.am addhama_gaha_ bha_sa tesim savvesim

a_riyaman.a_riya_n.am appan.o sabha_sa_e parin.a_men.am parin.amai.

 

Deshpande cites from LB Gandhi, a similar version of tranformation

contained in Aupapa_tikasu_tra, in another su_tra called

Samava_ya_ngasu_tra, where the audience includes bipeds, quadrupeds,

beasts, animals, birds and serpents apart from ariya and mleccha:

 

sa_ vi ya n.am addhama_gahi_ bha_sa_ bha_sijjama_n.i_ tesim savvesim

a_riyaman.a_riya_n.am duppaya cauppaya miya pasu pakkhi sari_siva_n.am

appappan.o hiyasiva suha da_ya bha_satta_e parin.amai.

(A_gamoddha_rasamiti edition, p. 60, quoted in L.B. Gandhi, ed., 1927,

Apabhrams'aka_vyatrayi_, by Jinadattasu_ri, Gaekwad's Oriental Series

No. 37, Reprinted in 1967, Baroda). This automatic transformation of

ardhama_gadhi speech into the languages of the listeners is a way of

affirming the nature of the lingua franca, Prakrit, when Mahavira

communicates Jaina dhamma as ariya dhamma. There is explicit

permission to use Prakrit, as a non-ariya language, that is non-use of

grammatically correct Samskr.tam, to communicate to all people: This

is categorically stated in Kundakunda's Samayasa_ra, verse 8:

 

yatha n.a vi sakkam an.ajjo an.ajjabha_sam vin.a_ du ga_hedum

taha vavaha_ren.a vin.a_ paramatthuvadesan.am asakkam

 

This is a crucial phrase, vyavaha_ra or vavaha_ra, the spoken tongue

in vogue, or the lingua franca, or what french linguists call, parole.

The use of vyava_hara bha_sa, that is mleccha tongue, was crucial for

effectively communicating Mahavira's message on ariya dhamma.

 

The clarity with which two dialect streams are identified in the

region traversed by Mahavira, is also explicit in the statement

contained in S'atapatha Bra_hman.a (3.2.1.23).

 

he 'lavo he 'lavah

 

is said to be the expression of exclamation by asura. Paul Thieme

takes this to be ma_gadhi_ equivalent:

 

he 'layo he 'layah (so cited by grammarian Patanjali)

 

which in turn, corresponds to Samskr.tam: he 'rayo he 'rayah 'hail

friends!' (Paul Thieme, 1938, Der Fremdling im R.gveda, Eine Studie

uber die Bedeutung der Worte ari, arya, aryaman und a_rya. Leipzig:

Brockhaus. Reprint in: Paul Thieme, Opera Maiora, Band I. Ed. Werner

Knobl and Nobuhiko Kobayashi, Kyoto: Hozokan Publishing Co. 1995, pp.

1-184, p. 4 (10).

 

This passage and other evidence leads David Carpenter to conclude:

'(vedic society) as a hybrid culture forged out of Indo-Aryan and

indigenous ...elements under the aegis of the cultural norm

represented by the sacrifice and its language.' (Carpenter, David,

1994, The mastery of speech: canonicity and control in the Vedas, in:

Authority, anciety and canon. Essays in Vedic interpretations, ed.

Laurie L. Patton, Albany, State University of New York Press, pp.

10-34, p. 30).

 

Heinz-Jurgen Pinnow's "Versuch einer Historischen Lautlehre der

Kharia-Sprache" published in 1959 was a pioneering work which sought

to identify etymologies of austroasiatic family of languages. Pinnow

included Nahali (a language spoken on the River Tapati in a region

northwest of Ellichpur in Madhya Pradesh, not far from the Bhimbhetka

caves, a language which is said to have 24% with no cognates in India

(hence, a language isolate or language Y?), 36% Kurku munda glosses

and 9% dravidian glosses â€" cf. Kuiper, FBJ, 1966, The sources of

Nahali vocabulary, in H. Zide, ed., Studies in comparative

Austroasiatic linguistics, The Hague, pp. 96-192), in his list making

comparisons of vocabularies betwen Nahali and Mundarica. (Pinnow,

Heinz-Jürgen. 1959. Versuch Einer Historischen Lautlehre Der

Kharia-Sprache. Wiesbaden, Otto Harrassowitz.) IE linguistics is

divided on the issue of classifying Nahali; is it a language isolate?

Or, is it part of an Indo-Aryan family? Even the set of languages

which were in use in Bharat in ancient times has not been drawn up,

"common objections are that we cannot even identify most of hose

non-IA languages, now died out, or that we have no Dravidian or Munda

documents from that time." (Kuiper, FBJ, 1991, Aryans in the Rigveda,

Amsteram-Atlanta: Rodopi, Page i). This is the sorry state of affairs

about linguistic studies related to the 'I' in the IE family. The

sorry state is exemplified by the postulate of 'language X' by Masica

to explain 30% of the words used in Hindi for agricultural plants.

(Masica, Colin, 1979, Aryan and non-Aryan elements in North Indian

Agriculture', in M. Deshpande, PE Hook, eds., Aryan and non-Aryan in

India, Ann Arbor: Center for South and Southeast Asian Studie,

University of Michigan, p. 55-151. Add to this, the observation of

Kuiper: '...it should be recognized that (Vedic) Sanskrit had long

been AN INDIAN LANGUAGE (emphasis Kuiper's), when it made its

appearance in history. The adaptations to foreign linguistic patterns

cannot be dismissed.' (Kuiper, FBJ, 1991, opcit, p. 94). Thus, we have

a situation where the Vedic dialect itself is a composite of

substratum and adstratum, yet an 'Indian language'. Is it necessary or

possible, through linguistic methods, to isolate the munda, dravidian

and indo-aryan elements in Vedic? In my view, it is not necessary. It

is enough to start with an agreed consensus that Vedic is an 'Indian

language,' as categorised by Kuiper.

 

If Vedic contained a significant munda presence (substratum or

adstratum or borrowing), the tacit, underlying hypothesis is that

munda was present in the saptasindhu region, a region closely

identified as the locus of the vedic language. The presence of munda

is emphatic, not merely in terms of glosses but also in terms of

traditions such as those related to e_mu_s.a and dhrumbhu_li.

 

How could the presence of munda (it is irrelevant if it was deemed to

be substrate or adstrate) in saptasindhu region be explained? Are

words such as is.t.aka (brick), pin.d.a (lump), khad.ga (rhino),

kan.d. (furnace) of munda origin? Are words with â€"n.d.- of

indigenous

origin, say of language X? (cf. Hoffman, K., 1941, Die

alt-indoarischen worter mit â€"n.d.- besonders im R.gveda, PhD

dissertation, Munchen)

 

Did the munda of the Ganga basin move into the Sarasvati-Sindhu river

basins in search of new mineral resources, such as the minerals

available in Khetri mines and Badakshan Afghanistan mines? If so, the

roots of mineral-metal-furnace related words have to be traced into

munda metallurgical traditions.

 

Since linguistic studies related to comparative etyma are based on

articles of faith, they are of limited help in establishing the

direction of borrowing. We have to seek for munda presence in

saptasindhu region based on munda cultural traditions. One remarkable

cultural tradition of exchange of betel leaves and betel nuts to

settle contracts â€" referred to as ta_mbu_la exchanges between

contracting parties â€" is a living cultural presence in all parts of

Bharat. The word ta_mbu_la is of munda origin, relatable to the word

ba_ru 'betel', a word which is retained in Bengali language, not far

from the Santal Paraganas region east of Vindhya mountain ranges and

not far from the area of iron ore mines of Bailadilla in

Dan.d.aka_ran.ya-Bolangir-Kiriburu railway. linking the mine sources

with the port town of Vis'a_khapat.t.an.am. Pat.t.an.a is a word which

occurs also in Gujarat (e.g., Patan on the banks of palaeochannels of

River Sarasvati) to denote a port town. Kot.d.a (Dholavira) is likely

to have been such a port town servicing the trade between Meluhha

across Magan and Dilmun with Mesopotamia on the Tigris-Euphrates river

doab. If dak 'water' is embedded in the name of a river, Gan.d.aki_,

the word udaka in Samskr.tam is likely to be a good example of an

autochthonous, indigenous word from Indian languages. Even, assuming

for the sake of maintaining the linguistic doctrine, that Aryan was an

arrival in the saptasindhu region, if R.gveda is seen to contain a

significant munda presence, the conclusion becomes inescapable that a

long period of contact had been established between vedic and munda,

i.e. 'between the arrival of the Aryans... and the formation of the

oldest hymns of the R.gveda a much longer period must have elapsed

than normally thought.' (Kuiper, 1967, The genesis of a linguistic

area, Indo-Iranian Journal, 10: 81-102; 1997, Selected writings on

Indian linguistics and philology, in: A. Lubotsky, MS Oort and M.

Witzel, eds., Amsterdam-Atlanta: Rodopi, XXIV). An alternative

linguistic doctrine can be that vedic and munda speakers were present

in the saptasindhu region during the days of the Sarasvati

civilization (circa 3300 to 1500 BCE). This presence is further

archaeologically attested by the presence of iron-smelters of munda

metallurgical tradition, in the Ganga river basin circa 1800 BCE,

overlapping with the so-called chalcolithic period of Sarasvati

civilization. Metal workers of Sarasvati-Sindhu-Ganga basins defined

the metals age in Bharat during almost two millennia between ca. 3300

and 1500 BCE â€" metal-workers dealing with gold, silver, copper, tin,

arsenic and iron with ability to produce hardened alloys to make hard

tools and weapons such as axes, adzes, swords, knives, spearheads and

arrowheads.

 

Arya and ana_rya were not distinct and isolated categories of

languages or speakers of distinct languages. As Kuiper noted, 'those

who believe that a definite ethnic barrier separated the 'aryans' from

the surrounding non-aryan peoples disregarded some well known

facts...' (Kuiper, 1991, opcit., p. 6). Some well known facts such as

the continuity of the tradition of a pus.karin.i in front of a

mandiram, of performance of yajn~a in a yajn~a kun.d.a, svastika as a

cultural glyph, of s'iva linga as a murti of veneration, of s'ankha as

an industry to produce s'ankha bangles and s'ankha trumpets, an

industry which is continuous from 6500 BCE to the present-day. (cf.

the presence of s'ankha wide bangle in a woman's

burial in Mehergarh reported by Jarrige), presence of terracotta

images with sindhur (red colour paint) on the parting of the black

hair, veneration of mother as devi, use of binary gradation of weights

for weighing precious metals such as gold and silver.

 

If the aryans were there in the saptasindhu region and if the munda

were there in the saptasindhu region, the presence of munda words in

vedic can be explained without having to use a false or mythical

linguistic doctrine of aryan arrivals into the region. A simple,

straightforward understanding can be that they both belonged to the

region from prehistoric times and continued to interact for an

extended period of time, say, for nearly two millennia. This may

explain why some scholars consider munda (Ho or Kole of eastern

Bharat) to be the source for many austroasiatic languages across the

rim of the hindumahasagar or the Indian Ocean. The people who created

the Sarasvati civilization, were, after all, people who created a

riverine, maritime civilization in a remarkale domain stretching from

the himalayas to the Tigris-Euphrates doab across the himalayan river

streams of Sarasvati and Sindhu and across Kacch and Persian gulfs,

people who could move into the Ganga river basin and go beyond this

river basin into the other himalayan rivers such as Irawady, Salween

(Burma) and Mekong (Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia). In this perspective, the

location of present-day Nahali speakers not far from the sindhusagara

(Arabian Sea) gains significance. A reconstruction of the mleccha

bha_s.a (spoken idiom) based on Nahali, Munda and proto-versions of

present-day languages of the Sindhu, Sarasvati and Ganga river basins

is likely to yield a clue to the problem of understanding the glyphs

created by the people of the Sarasvati civilization, on the hypothesis

that these people were the ancestors of present-day Bharatiya-s and

bharatiya languages and roots of bharatiya culture can be identified

as a web of interactions among the agrarian, metal-woring, trading

groups of people of the boundaries of Bharat as they existed in

pre-historic times. One definition of such a boundary is provided by

the term, 'sindhu' used in R.gveda. This, according to Thieme, means

'a natural ocean frontier'. This definition is not unlike the one used

in the days of Manu when the region called brahma_varta as a region

lying between rivers Sarasvati and Dr.s.advati. This may explain the

continuity of the vedic or hindu culture in a region called Bharat, a

region referred to as bha_ratam janam by Vis'vamitra Gathina in the

R.gveda.

 

This leads us to examine further the munda traditions which trace

their roots to the saptasindhu region. These studies need not

necessarily be linguistic, but can extend into sociology as defined by

the Frenh sociologist, Louis Dumont (Dumont, L., 1975, La civilisation

indienne et nous, Paris, Armand Colin) to distinguish between a

renouncer and a worldly-wise person, between philosophical

explorations and material cultures exemplified by archaeological finds

in the river basins of Bharat. Maybe, munda metal-workers were the

purve yajn~ika identified in the R.gveda, since both peoples, the

asura and the deva alike, keep the fire, agni going? Despite Sergent's

valiant efforts to seek IE roots in Greek medicine and Ayurveda, is it

possible that Ayurveda itself had indigenous roots in Bharat with a

coalescing of munda and vedic traditions? (Sergent, Bernard, 1997,

Genese de l'inde, Paris, Payot and Rivages, pp. 355 ff.) So, too, are

the metallurgical traditions exemplified by the iron pillar in Delhi

traceable to the roots found in Sarasvati civilization and metallurgy

of 2nd millennium BCE in Ganga basin?

 

Further researches will tell the grand narrative of bharatiya culture

with ancient, prehistoric, roots traced to the banks of Rivers

Sarasvati and Ganga.

 

S. Kalyanaraman

18 August 2004

--- End forwarded message ---