Did Greek adapt Veda thought? Indo-European roots traced to Veda Samskr̥tam? Was there an Ancient Maritime Tin Route from 5th millennium BCE, which predated Silk Road by two millennia? https://tinyurl.com/y7mxowzx Evidence of 8000+ wealth accounting ledgers on Indus Script inscriptions provides a framework
for Economic History of Wealth of Nations from 5th millennium BCE.
The answers can be found as we venture into narrating Arthaśāstra Itihāsa of Story of Civilization Or, Economic History of Wealth of Nations from 5th millennium BCE. Acquisition of artha for commonwealth trust is a puruṣārtha 'goal of life,' together with protection of dharma, 'global ethic, righteous self-less conduct' and fulfilment of kāma, 'desire' impelling human initiatives' and mokṣa 'Pilgrim's progress from being to Becoming'.
Reflected-light micrography of the mineralized cotton fibres (X500) (Copyright C2RMF, C. Moulherat).
It is now clear that silk fiber was used to create necklaces threading perforated beads. Coiled copper-alloy wire necklace discovered at Harappa in 2000 with traces of silk fibers preserved on the inside
London News reported Chanhu-daro discoveries of metalwork as from The Sheffield of Ancient India. Metalware catalog in London News Illustrated, November 21, 1936.A 'Sheffield of Ancient India: Chanhu-Daro's metal working industry
Thomas McEveilley traces the foundations of Western Civilization in Ancient Veda thought. Dumezel traces the foundations of social organization into tripartite varṇa to Indo-European roots. Nicholas Kazanas finds R̥gveda thought predates Sarasvati Civilization and Avestan and explains the foundations of Greek/Egyptian philosophies and Proto-Indo-European languages.
An excellent summary of Thomas McEveilley's thesis is found in the following interview (video):
Thomas McEvilley on 'The Shape of Ancient Thought'
Published on Apr 23, 2011"A revolutionary study by the classical philologist and art historian Thomas McEvilley is about to challenge much of academia. In THE SHAPE OF ANCIENT THOUGHT, an empirical study of the roots of Western culture, the author argues that Eastern and Western civilizations have not always had separate, autonomous metaphysical schemes, but have mutually influenced each other over a long period of time.
This monograph reconciles the insights of Nicholas Kazanas, Thomas McEveilley and Georges Dumezil 1. thanks to new light provided by Indus Script hypertexts on over 8000 inscriptions, and 2. correlating the Austro-Asiatic language map with Early Bronze Age sites of the Ancient Far East to explain the Tin-Bronze Revolution which started ca. 5th millennium BCE. Evidences from ancient Veda texts and the meanings of the Indus Script hypertexts are presented to explain the Arthaśāstra Itihāsa of Story of Civilization and role of Bhāratam Janam and draws upon the insights of Nicholas Kazanas who presents the fallacies of a reconstructed Proto-Indo-European Language.
Yes, there were intense interactions among Proto-Indo-European language speakers, but attempts fo reconstruct a PIE language are flawed with racist theories such as Aryan Invasion or Aryan Migration to explain the common language features across Eurasia. I suggest that ancient Bhāratam constituted a language union, a sprachbund. The spoken versions of the language of ca. 4th millennium of the artisans and seafaring merchants was Meluhha (mleccha) attested in all 8000+ Indus Script inscriptions which are wealth accounting ledgers of metalwork. These are the nucleus of activities which created the wealth of a nation as evidenced in Angus Maddison's work (presented to OECD before formation of European Union):
An Arthaśāstra framework is posited with śreṇi 'guilds' of artisans, seafaring merchants using the corporate form of organization to acquire wealth for the commonwealth -- to explain the reality that 34% of the World GDP was contributed by Bhāratam Janam (i.e. Ancient India of Vedic times preceding 1 CE by several millennia).
The epicentre of life-activities of these wealth-acquiring artisans/seafaringmerchants was Veda River Sarasvati Basin which accounts for over 80% (over 2000) of the 2600+ archaeological sites of Sarasvati Civilization.
Indian Remote Sensing IRS Wide-Field Senso (WiFS) image showing palaeochannel signature -- From Himalayas to Rann of Kutch, Gujarat .
Dumezil saw tripartite division of communities governed by varṇa classification of life-activities and the metaphor of pañcabhūta, पाञ्चभौतिक (five elements: pāñcabhautikaपाञ्चभौतिक a. (-की f.) Composed of the five elements or containing them; पाञ्चभौतिकी सृष्टिः Mv.6; Y.3.175; bhautika भौतिक a. (-की f.) [भूत-ठक्] 1 Belonging to created or living beings; प्रहुतो भौतिको बलिः Ms.3.74; आहंकारिकत्वश्रुतेर्न भौतिकानि Sāṅkhya S. -2 Formed of coarse elements, elemental, material; वृक्षाणां नास्ति भौतिकम् Bhāg. 12 184.9; पिण्डेष्वनास्था खलु भौतिकेषु R.2.57; bhauta भौत a. (-ती f.) [भूतानि प्राणिनो$धिकृत्य प्रवृत्तः, तानि देवता वा अस्य अण्] 1 Relating to living beings. -2 Elemental, material. -3 Demoniacal.
Ancient India had the unique practices related to पाञ्चभौतिक (five element classification. These life practices are called pāñcayajñika पाञ्चयज्ञिक a. (-की f.) 1 Belonging to the five great yajña-s. -कम् Any one of the five great yajña-s; एकमप्याशयेद् विप्रं पित्रर्थे पाञ्चयज्ञिके Ms.3.83 The five yajña-s are: bhautika'elements', manuṣya'people', daiva'destiny, related to divine phenomena', pit ṟ-/r̥ṣi-'ancestors, sages', brahma 'paramātman or Supreme Divine'. These five types of yajña signify all-inclusive life activities and ādhytātmikā or philosophical enquiries which synthesise as Veda thought. Yoga is a medium to achieve the unity of the ātman with the paramātman (that is, unity of life sensation, consciousness with Supreme or Cosmic Energy and Consciousness).
It is certainly possible that there was a diffusion of the Veda thought into early Greek thought exemplified by Socrates, Plato and Aristotle. At a bhauta level,the 8000+ Indus Script Inscriptions evidence the wealth accounting ledgers handled as mercantile transactions by ancient artisans and seafaring merchants linking Ancient Far East and Ancient Near East through an Ancient Maritime Tin Route catalyzing the Tin-Bronze revolution with the resources of cassiterite tin ore from the largest Tin Belt of the Globe in Himalayan River Basins of Mekong, Irrawaddy, Salween. These Himalayan glacial rivers had grounded down granite rocks to create the accumulation of cassiterite mineral ore in the Tin Belt.
Indus Script hypertexts on Karen/Dong Son Bronze Drums
An Indian Ocean Community existed in the Bronze Age transacting on the Tin Road.
The monograph is a postscript to the decipherment of 'backbone' and 'skeleton' hieroglyphs used extensively on Indus Script Corpora in the context of metalwork catalogues of the civilization contact areas. The hieroglyhphs signify hard alloy and deep boat (canoe) respectively which indicate the need for researches on seafaring and maritime activities of Meluhha artisans and merchants of the Indian Ocean. A Tin Road of the Bronze Age is posited preceding the Silk Road of Sutra texts from Indian sprachbund. This hypothesis is framed on the George Coeded, French savant's magnum opus, in the wake of discovery of Angkor Wat: Ancient History of Hinduised States of Far East (French original: Histoire ancienne des états hindouises d'Extrême Orient, 1944.) The state formation in Ancient Far East should have been founded on centuries of earlier contacts and cultural exchanges between the seafaring Meluhha merchants and seafaring artisans of the Ancient Far East. A profound set of researches related to the spread of Austro-Asiatic languages from Indian sprachbund to Ancient Far East provide the evidence for this possibility of cultural exchanges starting from the Bronze Age. (See correlating maps embedded.
The presentation is organized in three sections suggesting the pursuit of an area of research of Bronze Age suggested by Wilhelm G. Solheim's hypothesis of a trade/culturfal link between Ancient Near East and the Mediterranean (referenced at
Section 1: Backbone of Indus Script Corpora. Archaeometallurgical messages revealed by the cipher, suggesting Tin Road links between Ancient Far East and Ancient Near East
Section 2: Seafaring Ancient Near East -- Rationale for linking messages from Indus Script Corpora and Archaeometallury of Ancient Far East
Section 3. Background profiles on Indus Scipt Corpora and related archaeometallurgy as a framework for further researches to define the Tin Road of the Bronze Age linking Ancient Far East and Ancient Near East
अहम् राष्ट्री संगमनी वसूनां ... (RV 10.125)
I load with wealth the zealous sdcrificer who pours the juice and offers his oblation
3 I am the
Queen, the gathererup- of treasures, most thoughtful, first of those who merit worship.
Thus Gods have stablished me in many places with many homes to enter and abide in.
4 Through me alone all eat the food that feeds them, each man who sees, brewhes, hears the word
outspoken
They know it not, but yet they dwell beside me. Hear, one and all, the truth as I declare it.
5 1, verily, myself announce and utter the word that Gods and men alike shall welcome.
I make the man I love exceeding mighty, make him a sage, a
Rsi, and a
Brahman.
6 I bend the bow for
Rudra that his arrow may strike and slay the hater of devotion.
I rouse and order battle for the people, and I have penetrated
Earth and Heaven.
7 On the worlds' summit I bring forth the Father: my home is in the waters, in the ocean.
Thence I extend over all existing creatures, and touch even yonder heaven with my forehead.
8 I breathe a strong breath like the wind and tempest, the while I hold together all existence.
Beyond this wide earth and beyond the heavens I have become so mighty in my grandeur.
Some Bronze Age sites, Far East. (After Fig. 2.2 in Higham, Charles, 1996, The bronze age of Southeast Asia, Cambridge Univ. Press
Stannifrous areas of the world (From RG Taylor, Geology of Tin Deposits, Amsterdam 1979, 6, fig. 2.1)
Bronze Age sites of eastern Bha_rata and neighbouring areas: 1. Koldihwa; 2. Khairdih; 3. Chirand; 4. Mahisadal; 5. Pandu Rajar Dhibi; 6. Mehrgarh; 7. Harappa; 8. Mohenjo-daro; 9. Ahar; 10.Kayatha; 11. Navdatoli; 12. Inamgaon; 13. Non Pa Wai; 14. Nong Nor; 15. Ban Na Di and Ban Chiang; 16. Non Nok Tha; 17. Thanh Den; 18. Shizhaishan; 19. Ban Don Ta Phet [After Fig. 8.1 in: Charles Higham, 1996, The Bronze Age of Southeast Asia, Cambridge University Press].
The views related to Indo-Greek contacts and the roots of Indo-European peoples and language, have a direct bearing on the Itihāsa of Bhāratam Janam and the Story of Civilization.
The term Bhāratam Janam is an expression used by R̥ṣi Viśvāmitra (RV 3.53.12)
Translation (Griffith): 12 Praises to Indra have I sung, sustainer of this earth and heaven. This prayer of Visvamitra keeps secure the race of Bharatas. (I have suggested that the expression 'bharata' is related to metalwork as an Indus Script hypertext: भरत (p. 353) bharata n A factitious metal compounded of copper, pewter, tin &c. भरती (p. 353) bharatī a Composed of the metal भरत. भरिताचें भांडें (p. 353) bharitācē mbhāṇḍēṃ n (भरीत & भांडें) A vessel made up to the amount or quantity of; up to the measure of the contents or charge of.
Thus, bharata signifies alloy metal work, alloy of copper, pewter, tin; hence, an alloy metal worker. The guilds of such metalworkers are called bharata..
It is time to revisit the differing views presented by Thomas McEvelley and Georges Dumezil on the Indo-European roots of ancient Indian culture. KcEvelley sees ancient Indian thought which influenced Greek thought. Dumezil posits Indo-European roots for ancient Indian thought. The apparent differences in view between McEvelley and Dumezil are resolved by Nicholas Kazanas.
The resolution of the antiquity of Veda culture is emphatically presented by Nicholas Kazanas on a number of planes of analyses:
1.Indo-European linguistics, all-inclusiveness of R̥gveda,
2. Archaeological and literary evidences for R̥gveda pre-dating Sarasvati Civilization, R̥gveda precedence over Avestan
3. A firm believer in Proto-Indo-European language, Nicholas Kazanas rejects false constructions of a PIE language. "I do not belong to the small circle of sanskritists, classicists and others who reject the existence of PIE. Admittedly there is no hard evidence for this language – no texts, no fragments anywhere. But the astonishing similarities that unmistakably exist between Sanskrit, Old Greek, Latin and other languages cannot be dismissed as chance events or borrowing or wave-influences. The languages involved starting in the East and moving westward are chiefly these: Sanskrit (or Vedic or Old Indic), Avestan (or Iranian in Ancient Persia/Iran), Tocharian (in Central Asia), Armenian, Hittite (Luvian, Palaic and few others in what is today Turkey), Slavic (branches in Russia, Bulgaria, Serbia, Czechoslovakia, Poland and few other areas), Albanian, Greek, Latin (and few other dialects in today’s Italy, Spain, France and Rumania), Celtic (Old Irish/Welsh), Germanic (the largest family with Gothic, Old High German, Old Icelandic etc) and Baltic (=Latvian, Lithuanian and Old Prussian)."
4. Comparative studies of Vedic, Mesopotamian and Egyptian Religio-philosophical Thought (for example, Advaita and Gnosticism; Homer, Hesiod and the Mahabharata; Plato & Upaniṣad-s; Greek philosophy upto Aristotle; Philosophy in Hellenistic and Roman Times (analysing philosophical thought after Socrates, Plato and Aristotle)
5. Shamans, Religion, Soma and R̥gveda.
Eight fallacies of Proto-Indo-European (PIE) studies
Nicholas Kazanaslists the following fallacies:
The first fallacy is that the comparative method is “scientific” and can offer predictions. The second fallacy is that PIE can be reconstructed; such a reconstructed language cannot be verified. The third fallacy is that PIE can be reconstructed. The fourth fallacy is that the reconstructed PIE is real. PIE elements suggested are a new formation “reconstructed” with entities from different languages and projected as “real”. Such reeconstructions DO NOT constitute reality. Nicholas Kazanas notes: “According to my reading of anthropological, archaeological, genetic, linguistic and literary data, all expounded in detail in my two books (2009, 2015), the original IE homeland was in the larger area of Saptasindhu and covering Bactria. From there the various IE-speakers radiated to their northern and north-western and western migrations. The Avestan speakers are the last to leave and for this reason their tongue Old Iranian bears the greatest resemblance to Old Indic. Baudhāyana’s ŚrautaSūtra 18.14 mentions two migrations: one eastward, the Āyava; one westward, the Āmāvasa producing the Gāndhāris, Parśus (=Persians) and Arāttas (=of Urartu and/or Ararat on the Caucausus).”
The fifth fallacy is the notion of uniform phonological change in the selfsame environment.“This does sound most reasonable. In fact, it is quite otherwise in the actual world of the texts. I shall take only one example from Sanskrit and Avestan, since they are such close relatives and neighbours, the sonorant vowel |ṛ|, which is by full consensus held to be PIE Observe please that this |ṛ|, remains in fact in all the Sanskrit words but changes variously in the corresponding Avestan! There are, in fact, more variations in Avestan – ōrǝ , ar , ra … Writing on Kurylowitz’s ‘laws of change’, Heinrich Hock, one of the most eminent IE comparativists stated – “a prediction of when a change will or must occur is impossible” (1991:211).” The sixth fallacy is fallacy is the division into satem and centum languages: satem being Sanskrit, Avestan, Baltic etc; centum being Tocharian, Greek, Latin etc. “As is generally known, the distinction is due to the appearance of palatals in satem (from Avestan ‘one hundred’ = S śata) and of velars (gutturals) in the centum (from L ‘one hundred’). However, this distinction is not so absolute as one might think. Palatals are found in some places in centum tongues and velars in satem.”
Nicholas Kazanas goes on to cite the biggest, eighth fallacy which “is exposed by the presence of roots or more correctly dhātus ‘lexical seedforms’ in Sanskrit. When all the paraphernalia of PIE reconstructions are laid aside the investigator finds that, in plain fact, only Sanskrit and Avestan (to a much lesser degree) have roots! The other IE languages have verbs and nouns etc but not roots, as such, from which verbs and nouns etc are derived. Even Sanskrit has many words that cannot be analysed or traced back to a dhātu (apart from borrowed words): e.g. kakud ‘peak’, nṛ/nara ‘ man’, putra ‘child/son’, balakṣa ‘white’, śūdra ‘servile’ etc. But it has 2000 dhātus all told and about 700 fully active in the early language…The most telling aspect for the antiquity and significance of Sanskrit is precisely this organic coherence arising from roots generating verbs, nouns etc. This functions with the regular use of suffixes, verbal and nominal. I shall give only two examples, but the instances are hundreds.”
Citing the insights of Edmund Leach, NicholasKazanas concludes: “Edmund Leach, provost of King’s College Cambridge, wrote many years ago: “Because of their commitment to a unilateral segmentary history of language development that needed to be mapped onto the ground, the philologists took it for granted that proto-Indo-Iranian was a language that had originated outside India or Iran…. From this we derived the myth of the Aryan invasions”. But he went further: “Indo-European scholars should have scrapped their historical reconstructions and started again from scratch. But this is not what happened. Vested interests and academic posts were involved” (Leach 1990:238).I am afraid that the edifice of IE linguistics and reconstructions continues to be based on those “vested interests”“ In summary, the sum total of the eight fallacies of PIE relate to the exclusion of R̥gveda Samskr̥tam from the discourses of PIE linguistic arguments.
R̥gveda is such a dominant historical reality of several millennia prior to Sarasvati Civilization that the archaeological evidence of Binjor on the Sarasvati RiverBasin (near Anupgarh) has produced the evidence of Veda culture with a yajna kuṇḍa with aṣṭāśri yupa (octagonal pillar) and an inscription (Indus Script hypertext) to signify wealth-accounting ledger of metalwork.
I disagree with some views linking 1.Shamanism and Soma, 2. Shamanism and Yoga
Linking Soma with Shamanism is based erroroneous deecipherment of Soma (as an inembriant drink). Soma is a metallurgical artifact purchased from the merchant from Mujavant, resulting in acquisition of wealth. (Mujavant may be Mushtag Ata in Kyrgystan which has mountains of gold-electrum reserves.).
I disagree with the views expressed linking Soma Yajña and Yoga of ancient Vedic thought with European Shamanism. The views linking Vedic thought and Yoga with Shamanism are flawed because, they are highly opinionated and arise from a patently wrong identification of Soma as an inebriant drink or as a mushroom. I have argued extensively that Soma is NOT a drink; Soma is a metaphor for metallurgical processing in fire to create hardened alloys using the skambha (yupa with caṣāla of godhuma, 'wheat chaff' bundles) to infuse carbon into molten metal to harden the alloy metal. It will be an error to view Soma merely in ādibhautika levels of analysis ignoring the metaphors presented at ādidaivika, ādhyātmikā and turīya levels of thought. At an ādibhautika level also, Soma has a synonym amśu which is cognate with ancu 'iron' in Tocharian (pace Georges Pinault). The activities narrated in R̥gveda relate to the early tin-bronze revolution of period earlier than 5th millennium BCE, attested by references to ayas'alloy metal'. This is signified on Indus Script hypertexts by the hieroglyphs/hypertexts with variant orthographies of aya, ayo'fish'. There are also repeated references to alloys such as bharat, ranga. barad, barat, 'ox' rebus: bharat, baran 'mixed alloys' (5 copper, 4 zinc and 1 tin) (Punjabi). 'factitious alloy of copper, zinc, tin'; ranga 'buffalo' rebus: ranga 'pewter'; पोळ pōḷa 'zebu'& pōlaḍu 'black drongo' signify पोळ pōḷa 'magnetite, ferrite ore and polad 'steel' respectively. sattva, 'svastika hieroglyph' rebus: sattva, jasta 'zinc' ranku 'liquid measure, antelope' rebus: ranku 'tin'. The Indus Script evidence now consites of over 8000 inscriptions and all of them evidence wealth accounting ledgers of metalwork by artisans and seafaring merchants of the Bronze Age. A Maritime Tin Route existed predating the Silk Road by 2 millennia linking Ancient Far East and Ancient Near East through the Indian Ocean and Ancient India, along the riverine waterways of Himalayan rivers. Himalayan river basins of Mekong, Irrawaddy, Salween evidence the largest tin belt of the globe which supplied the tin (cassiterite) to realize the Tin-Bronze Revolution. Cassiterite accumulation in the tin belt is caused by millions of years of grounding down of granite rocks of the river basins to create mineral ore reserves of cassiterite (tin ore). The availability of tin in the Tin Belt of the Himalayan rivers explain the unique phenomena of Dong Son and Kareen Bronze drums with tympanums displaying Indus Script hieroglyphs/hypertexts to signify metalwork. The tympanums are made in cire perdue (lost-wax) metallurgical technique of casting sculptural/orthographic friezes. This Ancient Tin Route which predated the Silk Road by 2 millennia has to be unravaled by further archaeometallurgical and marine archaeological investigations. The presence of artisans with knowledge of Indus Script hypertext representations explains the roots of Khmer languages from Santali/Munda Austro-Asiatic languages of Bharat, that is India. The cultural presence of Hindu and Vedic thought in the Ancient Far East is attested by the largest Vishnu mandiram of the world in Angkor Wat and hundreds of Śivalings with octagonal shaped rudrabhāga proclaiming the octagonal aṣṭāśri yupa topped by caṣāla to proclaim the performance of Soma Yajña. The presence of 19 Yupa inscriptions including 5 Yupa inscriptions of Mulavarman in Borneo, Ancient Far East are emphatic evidences of the performance of bahusuvarṇaka Soma Yajña in East Borneo. Śivalings identified as jaṭālinga and ekamukha linga are also evidences of wealth-creation activities through metalwork. The jaṭālinga is an extended caṣāla metaphor to create hard metal alloys. Ekamukha linga is an Indus Script hypertext: mũh 'a face' in Indus Script Cipher signifies mũh, muhã'ingot' or muhã 'quantity of metal produced at one time in a native smelting furnace.' The Skambha Sukta of AV (X.7,8) is a philosophical enquiry into the nature of the pillar, the fiery pillar of light which is adored in a फडा phaḍā 'metals manufactory' signified by the Indus Script hieroglyph फडा phaḍā 'cobra hood'. A further embellishment in orthography expands the Indus Script hypertext method to include a Śrivatsa atop a fiery pillar to signify ayo'fish' rebus: ayas 'alloy metal' PLUS skambha,kambha'pillar', 'khambhaṛā'fish-fin' rebus: kammaṭa 'mint, coiner, coinage' PLUS dula 'pair' rebus: dul 'metal casting'. Thus, Śrivatsa is an Indus Script hypertext to signify wealth accounting ledger of alloy metal casting work in a mint-- ayo kammaṭa, an expression evidenced in Mahavamsa.(Mahavamsa, XXV, 28,ayo-kammata-dvara, "iron studded gate",'"gateway of alloy metalmint.")
Amaravati sculptural friezes signifying Śrivatsa and Skambha Yupa with फडा phaḍā 'metals manufactory' signified by the Indus Script hieroglyph फडा phaḍā 'cobra hood'. the feet hieroglyph as a semantic determinative: pada'feet'paṭam'instep' rebus: फडा phaḍā 'metals manufactory', paṭṭaḍa, 'metals workshop'.
Linking Shamanism with Yoga is based on an erroroneous understanding of the philosophical foundations of Yoga
Yes, there are intimations of magical practices in, for example, Atharva Veda.These practices are related to the perceived links between cosmic phenomena and ailments of human beings or animals on the terrestrial plane. These practices led to the efflorescence of Ayurveda as a medical system understanding the nature of a living being and the therapeutic effect of herbals and minerals.
There are varieties of tantra-s which do present some magical practices.
The foundations of Yoga are NOT based on these practices, but on the primordial concept of praṇava, OM sound which signifies paramātman, Brahman. The enquiry of Yoga is premised on the prāṇāyāma, the repetition of the OM sound together with deep-breathing to realize inner peace and tranquility.
Together with Bhagavad Gita, Yoga Vasistha, texts attributed to Yajnavalkyaand Hiranyagarbha, as well as literature on hatha yoga, tantric yoga and pashupata yoga, Pātañjalayogaśāstra ("The Treatise on Yoga according to Patañjali") presents succinct accounts of the Yoga practices which include samādhi postures taught in the text which resemble the Buddhist jhanas with outlines of two different traditions, namely "eight limb yoga" (ashtanga yoga) and action yoga (Kriya yoga).
The definition of Yoga is contained in this statement: "Yogaś citta-vritti-nirodhaḥ" ("Yoga is the restraint of mental modifications"). This clear definition is a clear that there are no intimations of any type of magical practices. Yoga is simply a meditative exercise, together with deep breathing and repetition of the OM sound.
samādhi pada (51 Sutras) are states described to unify the ātman with the Brahman.
Sādhana Pada (55 Sutras) in two parts Kriya Yoga (Action Yoga -- also known as karma yoga, delinking the results of action from human initiatives) and Aṣṭānga Yoga (Eightfold or Eightlimbed Yoga or eight limbs of Rāja Yoga).
Kaivalya Pada (34 Sutras) are a process of liberation, moving from Being to Becoming, to reach the state of united ātman with the paramātman.
The so-called Shamanic pratices are a result of misinterpretation of the Yoga as a means to attain kaivalyam. The purpose of using samadhi is not to gain siddhis but to achieve Kaivalya. Siddhis are but distractions from Kaivalaya and are to be discouraged. Siddhis are but maya, or illusion. Some Siddhi-practices may have resulted in emphasis on 'magical poweers' of healing etc. Such distortions DO NOT negate the foundational principle of Yoga in Vedic thought wich is simply: Yogaś citta-vritti-nirodhaḥ.
There are intimations of practice of Yoga in Sarasvati Civilization (from ca. 4th millennium BCE) with many toys signifying Yoga postures.
Several clay figurines of the Sarasvati Civilization in Yoga postures.
Kalyanaraman had interviewed Nicholas Kazanas in Chennai on March 1, 2011: Two videos of the interview:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pEYYmyZmuCU (33:41) In Chennai on 1 March 2011, the interview covered a wide range of issues related to vedic civilization, sprachbund (language union or linguistic area), indian ocean community and vedic studies. Nicholas Kazanas, Vedic scholar interviewed by S. Kalyanaraman (2/2)
Thomas McEvelley breaks new ground in comparing common features seen in ancient Greek and ancient Indian philosophies. McEvelley's thesis is that Greek thought was significantly influenced by ancient Indian knowledge systems; he cites examples of 1. the tripartite system of varṇa for social organization of ancient communities and 2. Yoga linked with Shamanic practices. (McEvilley, Thomas. 2002. The Shape of Ancient Thought: Comparative Studies in Greek and Indian Philosophies. New York: Allworth Press.)
'Planetarium Software and the Date of the Mahabharata War', by B. N. Narahari Achar
The University of Memphis, Memphis TN 38152
The importance of determining the date of the Mahabharata war for ancient Indian chronology can hardly be overstated. A plethora of dates, derived on the basis of a number of diverse methodologies have been proposed and a consensus has yet to be reached. A number of authors have concentrated on the references to astronomical events such as eclipses found in the epic as a basis for determining the date of the war. However, it has not been possible to arrive at a definite date on the basis of astronomical references either. A new tool in the form of Planetarium Software has become available for examining the astronomical references. It is the purpose of this paper to report some preliminary results that have been obtained in applying this tool for the purpose of determining the date of the Mahabharata war.
Preliminary results indicate that Planetarium software can be used with advantage by simulating views of the ancient skies to determine the date of the Mahabharata war .
The work is supporte
d in part by a Faculty Research Grant of the University of Memphis. The author also wishes to thank Dr. Kalyanaraman for suggesting this problem and for bringing Raghavan's work to his notice.
Rigvedic all-inclusiveness' by N. Kazanas
The Rigveda contains and seems to preserve more common elements from the Proto-Indo-European Culture than any other branch of the family. This essay examines various points of language, poetry and philosophy but it focuses mainly on grammatical elements, lexical and syntactical, and on aspects of (fine) poetry. This is one aspect showing that Vedic and its culture is much closer to the PIE language and culture than any other branch in that family. Moreover, it shows that it is most unlikely that Vedic moved across thousands of miles over difficult terrains to come to rest in what is today N-W India and Pakistan, in Saptasindhu or the Land of the Seven Rivers. Certain other aspects show that Iranian moved away from Vedic and Saptasindhu and most probably the other branches did the same at a very distant but undetermined period. Finally, monotheism is also a notable feature in the RV despite its pronounced polytheism.
The article has already been presented in two Conferences in India and will be published in the book Perspectives on Origin of Indian Civilization edited by Angela Marcantonio & Girish Nath Jha in association with the Center for Indic Studies, Dartmouth (USA).
Fallacies of Proto-Indo-European
0.There was a P(roto)I(ndo-)E(uropean) language 10.000 years ago. Its reconstruction is impossible now despite enormous efforts by fanciful scholars. The closest extant language is (old) Sanskrit.
- I do not belong to the small circle of sanskritists, classicists and others who reject the existence of PIE. Admittedly there is no hard evidence for this language – no texts, no fragments anywhere. But the astonishing similarities that unmistakably exist between Sanskrit, Old Greek, Latin and other languages cannot be dismissed as chance events or borrowing or wave-influences. The languages involved starting in the East and moving westward are chiefly these: Sanskrit (or Vedic or Old Indic), Avestan (or Iranian in Ancient Persia/Iran), Tocharian (in Central Asia), Armenian, Hittite (Luvian, Palaic and few others in what is today Turkey), Slavic (branches in Russia, Bulgaria, Serbia, Czechoslovakia, Poland and few other areas), Albanian, Greek, Latin (and few other dialects in today’s Italy, Spain, France and Rumania), Celtic (Old Irish/Welsh), Germanic (the largest family with Gothic, Old High German, Old Icelandic etc) and Baltic (=Latvian, Lithuanian and Old Prussian).
From these ancient languages various scholars have over almost two centuries now, starting around 1800, “reconstructed”, so they claim, the ancient PIE. I shall not cite any of these reconstructions, except on rare occasions as absurd examples, because they are all imaginary, having no true basis in reality, since no trace of PIE itself has survived. Some laws of change and interrelation between (some of) the extant languages are valid since they are based on actual lexemes (=forms of words). But as soon as one moves out of these few oases of rationality, one wallows in uncertainty and conjecture.
- Let me start by giving some examples of close similarities. I leave out Avestan (or Iranian) because in most case the lexeme is very similar to Sanskrit. But I deal with some Indo-Iranian affinities in §8, below.
belly : S(anskrit) udara , Gk hoderos, L(atin) (venter?) uterus, B(altic) vēderas .
flesh : S māṃsa, Toch(arian) misa, Arm(enian) mis, Sl(avic) mesa, Alb(anian) mish, G(er)m(anic) mimz/mensā, B mesa.
knee : S jānu , Gk gonu , L genu , Gm kniw.
molar(tooth): S jamba, Toch keme, Sl zebn, Alb(anian) dhëmb, Gk gomphos.
father : S pitṛ/pitar , Gk patēr, L pater, C athir (Celtic lost |p| almost everywhere), Gm fadar .
mother : is found in various forms in all except H(ittite)
son : S sūnu , Toch soy, Sl synǔ, Gk hui-, Gm sunu(s), B sūnus.
dawn : S uṣās , Gk ēōs, L au[s]rora, Gm eostre, B aušra.
fire : S agni , H agnis, Sl ognǔ, L ignis , B ugnis.
rainwater : S abhra, Arm amb, Gk ombro, L imber.
star : S star- , Toch śreñ/ścirye, Arm astl-, Gk astēr , L stella , C sterenn , Gm stairnō .
awl : S ārā , Gm al/āla , Old Prussian ylo , B yla .
butter : S sarpis , Toch sälyp-e, Alb gjalp, Gk helpos, Gm salba.
house : S dhāma, Sl domǔ, Gk dom-a/-o, L domus.
wheel : S cakra , Toch kukäl, Gk kuklo-, Gm hwēol.
be : S asti, Gk esti, Gm ist etc etc.
beget : S jan-, Gk gen-, Lt gen-, C gen-a/i.
grab : S grabh, H karp, Sl grabi-, Gm gre(i)pan, B grābt.
put : S dhā- , Toch täs/tēs, H dai, Sl dĕ-ti, Gk ti-thē-, C do-di, B détí.
think : S man, Sl mǐnĕ-, Gk mna-/main-, L me-min-, C de-moin-, Gm mun, B many.
There are hundreds more. But enough examples have been given to show that far too many lexemes have close resemblance to assume anything other than a genetic relation. That is to say, the languages mentioned descended from one original mother tongue and each retained many or few aspects according to the influences it received once they had split, when groups of people speaking the original PIE began to diverge and move to different distant areas.
- Apart from lexemes there are similarities in the declension of nouns and conjugation of verbs and in syntax. Moreover, there are similarities in themes and motifs in mythology and in several customs, laws and social practices.
Below are the 1st Sing, 1st and 3rd Plural persons of the verb to be:
| Sanskrit | Hittite | Greek | Germanic(Gothic) |
sing 1 | asmi | ēšmi | eimi | im |
pl 1 | smas | ––– | e-smen | sijum |
pl 3 | santi | ašanzi | eisi/enti | sind |
Except for the Gothic sijum ‘we are’ the resemblances are so close as to need no further comment.
I shall close this section with one of the many mythologems that are common to three or more IE cultures. Versions of this are found in the Sanskrit, Greek, Celtic and Germanic (Scandinavian) cultures.
In the Vedic literature we find Saraṇyu, daughter of creator god Tvaṣṭṛ, marrying the Sungod Vivasvat. But soon afterward she disappeared leaving behind her a shadowy likeness and assumed the form of a mare. Vivasvat located her, assumed the form of a stallion and mated with her. As a result the twin horse deities Aśvins were born.
In Greece, goddess Demeter disappeared to escape the sexual harassment of seagod Poseidon. She assumed the form of a mare. Poseidon located her with the aid of Sungod, became a stallion and mated with her. As a result was born a noble horse Areion and a girl. Then the goddess was worshipped in Arcadia as Demeter Erinus (=Saraṇyu: a sure cognation).
In Scandinavia the gods asked a giant-mason to build for them a huge wall within a certain date and would win a goddess as reward. With the help of his horse Svadilfari, the mason worked very fast and would win the bet with the gods. So they sought the help of Loki, god of tricks and transformations. He became a mare and kept distracting the mason’s horse. Thus the gods won their bet as the mason was unable to finish on time. The mare became pregnant and bore the eight-legged horse Sleipnir, the fastest ever. This was given to kinggod Odin.
Again the similarities are quite extraordinary when one considers how far apart the three traditions were and how none of the intermediate IE or non-IE cultures had this legend. But the element of sex with a mare is found in other legends and the Irish should be mentioned here. In one tribe in Ulster, the future king had to mount a white mare before his coronation. Then the mare was slaughtered and cooked and all people involved in the ritual partook of the mare’s meat.
In some IE countries bestiality was forbidden except for mares and in some cases cows. Wherever Christianity was established all bestiality was prohibited.
- It is an established fact that we scholars love conjectures, models, suppositions, theories, about all subjects. When the similar IE languages were discovered and explored in the 19th cent, the desire arose naturally to find the mother tongue PIE. This was not forthcoming and it is unlikely that it will be discovered. So linguists specialising in this area, comparativists, began to contrive this PIE on the basis of the facts in these extant languages. They thought then, and now many of them are certain, that PIE could be “reconstructed”. The early attempts in the 20th cent were not very satisfactory and one generation after another “improved”, as they thought, on the work of the previous. By the 1990’s they felt confident that their methods had been refined and become very exact and scientific. And soon thereafter followed several studies presenting the last word on comparative IE philology and the reconstructed mother tongue PIE. (E.g. B. Fortson 2004, N. Ritt 2004, J. Clackson 2006.)
The first fallacy is that the comparative method is “scientific” and can offer predictions. And the comparativists are very proud of their “science” – although there are some few who dissent and consider all this a waste of time (e.g. Leach 1990; Angela Marcantonio 2009, 2013).
There are in fact no predictions outside observable phenomena in the fairly rich documentation of comparatively early languages like Sanskrit, Avestan, Greek and Latin. For instance, Sanskrit |ś| appears in Greek most frequently as |k|, as in S daśa = Gk deka for the number 10, and S śăta = Gk he-kato for the number 100. But S /ś/ appears in Greek as |p| also, as in S aśva = Gk hipposfor horse. When Mycenaean Greek was deciphered in mid-20th cent., it was discovered that it had iqo-/iqe- for horse. So the equation S |ś| = Gk |k| held true if |k| = |q|.
This discovery is, of course, no prediction at all. Because the other Greek dialects do not conform to this rule and the causes for the disparity are totally unknown.
In any event, the scientific predictions and reconstructions should concern the PIE itself. But this cannot be verified. Thus we are asked to accept the results of a “scientific” method that can in no way be verified. And this proposition comes from scholars who are regarded as mature, serious and well-educated. Yet they disregard one of the most basic conditions of scientific investigation: the results must be amenable to independent verification.
- Closely related to the previous fallacy, is the fallacy that PIE can be reconstructed.
It cannot. Apart from the impossibility of verifying the reconstructions since we have no genuine, original PIE linguistic facts, the data available from the various IE extant tongues contain many variations and contradictions. It is acknowledged by the more sober, older scholars that the extant languages descend not from the PIE itself but from dialects that had descended from it.
- Burrow who wrote a study of Sanskrit (1955, revised 1973), that still remains a standard text, wrote: “In the case of Indo-European it is certain that there was no such unitary language which can be reached by means of comparison… In fact detailed comparison makes it clear that the Indo-European that we can reach… was already deeply split up into a series of varying dialects” (11: 1973).
- Szemerényi, an eminent comparativist in his day but now out of favour and fashion, writes on one page that “the first task of the Indo-Euroepanist is … the fullest possible reconstruction of the Indo-European” to be used as “a starting-point for the interpretation of the system and its prehistory” but on another page writes that we need the reconstructed forms for easier reference (one form rather that the many in the diverse IE tongues) and elsewhere cites other scholars who assert that “complete forms cannot be reconstructed at all” (1996: 33)!
Like Szemerényi and others, I think all indoeuropeanist comparativists are aware of the absurd side of the matter, that is of reconstructing a language that cannot be verified, that is spoken by nobody and has no texts whatever! Don Ringe also, a respected contemporary comparativist, mentions the difficulties of reconstruction (2004: 1117). Yet the indoeuropeanists continue their “scientific” reconstructions degrading every sense of science and scientific investigation. In 2000 Calvert Watkins published The American Heritage Dictionary of Indo-European Roots , while others publish textbooks for students!!!
It is customary to place an asterisk initially on every reconstructed lexeme (e.g. *deiwos = S devas ‘god’) but Watkins has put no stars on his roots: anɘ ‘breathe’ (PIE *h2en-?!!?) = S an; gnō‘know’= S jñā ; mē ‘measure’ = S mā ; stā ‘stand’ = S sthā; yag ‘worship’ = S yaj ‘sacrifice’; etc. So readers uninformed in the subject may well think that these concoctions are actual roots of an actual language. This is a minor difficulty. Watkins indulges at length in misleading everybody by not providing adequate information or by providing only secondary inessential facts. E.g. root anɘ: he refers to L anima ‘soul’ and derivatives, to Gk anemo ‘wind’ and derivatives and the name ‘Enid’ from Welsh eneit ‘soul’. But he does not say that only S has the root (dhātu) itself √an and the conjugation of the verb ‘to breathe’!
The epidemic with proto-languages has spread to linguistic studies of other groups of languages, like Afro-Asiatic, Dravidian, Finno-Ugric, Kurtvelian etc. Even within IE family, the comparativists deal with Proto-Germanic, Proto-Celtic, Proto-Italic (i.e. Latin etc) and so on. R. Woodward edited, with the help of numerous other comparativists, in 2004, the Cambridge Encyclopedia of Ancient Languages (Cambridge, Britain). Chapter 17, incidentally, describes briefly in 14 pages and in “scientific” terms, the IE Protolanguage admitting that it is not attested but “reconstructed”.
However, the mentality behind this reconstructed PIE is not all that different from the belief, current in St Augustine’s time in the 4th cent CE that all languages descended from Hebrew. It was Joseph Scaliger (1540-1609) who first challenged this mainstream inane notion.
- Another fallacy is very subtle: it is the fallacy that PIE can be reconstructed.
If by some miracle a tablet should be discovered from say 10 000 BCE with a genuine (fragment of a) text of PIE, these experts would not recognise it as such because, I am sure, it would be vastly different from their reconstructions. I shall explain the reasons for my certitude below (§§ 7-11).
In an effort to convince others of the validity of the reconstructions, the IEnists use two analogies: one is the depiction of an animal, a drawing, in a biology textbook which is according to J. Clackson, “an idealised depiction”: the drawing corresponds to the creature (cat or caterpillar) but it is not the same as it (2013:270). Obviously the learned comparativist does not see the frightful fallacy here. The cat or caterpillar is drawn from real life; they are existing entities and the artist, or photographer in our days, has actually seen the animal itself and has not “reconstructed” it from scattered pieces, here and there, as philologists do!
The second analogy is the “map” of the sky and “constellations” like the Orion. These are presented in two dimensions whereas the actual positions of stars differ in depth and distance in space: some lie further away from earth than others (Clackson 2013:271). Here too our comparativist falls into the same fallacy. Sky-maps and constellations are real objects seen and photographed, not a concoction of pieces from different constellations in different areas of heaven as seen by us. The PIE tongue is not seen or photographed from real PIE elements: it is a new formation “reconstructed” with entities from different languages and projected as “real”. What has actual existence are the extant languages; the PIE is an imaginary collage, a conjectural projection without any real existence except in the linguistic books!
- The development of reconstruction has not been a straight line. At first Sanskrit was given prominence. Eventually a more “democratic” approach prevailed but one that regards Hittite as an older and closer descendant of the PIE. And since Hittite has a sound that came to be designated “laryngeal”, i.e. |h̯|, gradually this sound and variants were introduced to fill many gaps and solve difficulties met in comparisons. At one time these laryngeals were 10, now they have been reduced to 3. But they are wilfully introduced even in languages that do not have them, like Sanskrit and Avestan!
Sanskrit is not given the attention it deserves because it is regarded as more “modern” than Hittite, Iranian (=Avestan) etc.
This is due to the wretched AIT, the Aryan Invasion/Immigration Theory. This states that the Indoaryans (=ancient Indians/Aryans) came from Iran into N-W India c 1700 after spending some time in Iran with the Iranians and speaking a common Indo-Iranian protolanguage. They spread southward and eastward into the Gangetic plain driving the old natives south into the Dravidian area of India, or reducing them into the servile class.
This absurd Theory, like so many others, has become mainstream doctrine. It ignores glaring facts. The Avestan hymns say that the Iranians themselves wandered much before settling into South Iran and the first place they passed from was the Land of the Seven Rivers (in N-W India and Pakistan). A Sanskrit text, again, Baudhāyana’s Śrautasūtra (18.14) says that there was the Āmāvasa migration from Saptasindhu (Land of 7 rivers) westward and the Ṛgveda hymn 6.61.9,12 says that the 5 Aryan tribes spread beyond the seven sister-rivers!
However, I leave this fallacious theory as I have deconstructed it in my Vedic and Indo-European Studies (N. Delhi, 2015) and in numerous other publications.
According to my reading of anthropological, archaeological, genetic, linguistic and literary data, all expounded in detail in my two books (2009, 2015), the original IE homeland was in the larger area of Saptasindhu and covering Bactria. From there the various IE-speakers radiated to their northern and north-western and western migrations. The Avestan speakers are the last to leave and for this reason their tongue Old Iranian bears the greatest resemblance to Old Indic.
Baudhāyana’s ŚrautaSūtra 18.14 mentions two migrations: one eastward, the Āyava; one westward, the Āmāvasa producing the Gāndhāris, Parśus (=Persians) and Arāttas (=of Urartu and/or Ararat on the Caucausus).
- Another fallacy is the notion of uniform phonological change in the selfsame environment.
This does sound most reasonable. In fact, it is quite otherwise in the actual world of the texts. I shall take only one example from Sanskrit and Avestan, since they are such close relatives and neighbours, the sonorant vowel |ṛ|, which is by full consensus held to be PIE.
Observe please that this |ṛ|, remains in fact in all the Sanskrit words but changes variously in the corresponding Avestan!
S | ṛṣṭi ‘spear’; | amṛta ‘immortal’; | vṛka ‘wolf’; | vṛkṣa ‘tree’; | ākṛti ‘form’ |
A | aršti ; | amǝša ; | vǝhrka ; | varǝša ; | ākǝrǝti |
There are, in fact, more variations in Avestan – ōrǝ , ar , ra …
Writing on Kurylowitz’s ‘laws of change’, Heinrich Hock, one of the most eminent IE comparativists stated – “a prediction of when a change will or must occur is impossible” (1991:211).
- Another fallacy is the division into satem and centum languages: satem being Sanskrit, Avestan, Baltic etc; centum being Tocharian, Greek, Latin etc. As is generally known, the distinction is due to the appearance of palatals in satem (from Avestan ‘one hundred’ = S śata) and of velars (gutturals) in the centum (from L ‘one hundred’). However, this distinction is not so absolute as one might think. Palatals are found in some places in centum tongues and velars in satem.
The Baltic languages are three: Old Prussian, Latvian and Lithuanian. Well, in Lithuanian we find god Perkunas (and variants = Sl Perenu) who is cognate with S Parjanya. Thus S has the palatal |j| as is proper for satem but Lithuanian has the velar |k| which is proper to centum languages.
- The biggest fallacy and central to any discussion regarding the Protolanguage in IE studies is exposed by the presence of roots or more correctly dhātus ‘lexical seedforms’ in Sanskrit. When all the paraphernalia of PIE reconstructions are laid aside the investigator finds that, in plain fact, only Sanskrit and Avestan (to a much lesser degree) have roots! The other IE languages have verbs and nouns etc but not roots, as such, from which verbs and nouns etc are derived. Even Sanskrit has many words that cannot be analysed or traced back to a dhātu (apart from borrowed words): e.g. kakud ‘peak’, nṛ/nara ‘man’, putra ‘child/son’, balakṣa ‘white’, śūdra ‘servile’ etc. But it has 2000 dhātus all told and about 700 fully active in the early language.
In his Dictionary Walkins gives 5 roots ser, and of these he connects number 2 with S ̦√sṛ > sarati/sisarti ‘moves/flows/runs’ and then gets lost in the labyrinth of IE complexities. This |sṛ| is not found as an independent word noun or adjective, but is found in S as stem in sṛ-t ‘running’, sṛ-ta ‘having gone/passed’, sṛti ‘way’ etc. Then there are sara saraṇa, sarit, sāra, sārin etc. This is found also in a cognate form in Tocharian salate, in Gk hallomai and L salio, all meaning ‘leap/rush’, but only as verbs, not as roots and with very few derivatives. The most curious fact is that its derivative saras ‘eddy, whirl, wave, lake’ is in the name of the ancient river saras-vatī. This is cognate with Avestan haraxvaiti, also a river’s name; but there is no root nor other word connected with this harah in Iranian, so it stands alone! The mainstream theory, that wants the common Indo-Iranian tongue and culture in Iran, says that the Indoaryans went to Saptasindhu and there gave their version of the name to a river to remind them of their former country. This of course is utter, wilful nonsense, because saras has a rich family of lexemes and a dhātu but the Iranian haraḥ is a lonely orphan! So the movement must have been the other way round and the Iranians just lost dhātu and derivatives retaining only the name and memory of the river in Saptasindhu. (See§7-8.) Otherwise, it is impossible that the Indoaryans left Iran with only harah/saras and once in their new habitat started developing other lexemes and the dhātu √sṛ.
- Of the 700 dhātus in the early Vedic texts, 200 are found in the root-form as nouns or adjectives and also stems for verbs. Thus Vedic has √īś (m) ‘lord’ and verb īś-e ‘I reign’; but also derivatives īśa, īśin, īśvara etc. Similarly √ruc > ruc (f) ‘lustre’ and á-ru-ruc-at‘one shone’ (in a past tense, called reduplicated aorist); but also derivatives ruk-ma, ruca-ka, rucin, rocana etc. Similarly √sad > sad (adj) ‘sitting’ and verb á-sad-at (aorist) ‘one sat’. 200 such dhātus with their families of derivatives (nouns and verbs etc) form a very rich inheritance – considering that no other IE language has anything. Tatiana Elizarenkova, the renowned Russian vedicist, put it like this: “the verb-root [=dhātu] is basic to both inflexion and derivation…it is irrelevant that for some root as such nouns are not attested”(1995: 50). Sanskrit has organic coherence.
The most telling aspect for the antiquity and significance of Sanskrit is precisely this organic coherence arising from roots generating verbs, nouns etc. This functions with the regular use of suffixes, verbal and nominal. I shall give only two examples, but the instances are hundreds.
S has the stems pad/pād- (weak/strong) ‘foot’ and √pad > vb padyate ‘befalls, falls’. Since the foot is the bodily part that in movement constantly rises and “falls” we see semantic as well as phonetic agreement. Gk has pous (Gen podos) and L pes (Gen pedis); Armenian, Hittite and Tocharian have similar cognates for ‘foot’. But none has a cognate verb like S √pad- ! Gm does have ge-fetan ‘to fall’ (Old English) and has cognates fôt/fuoz ‘foot’. Slavic also has pada/pasti‘falls’ but no other nominal cognates. Lithuanian has the verb peduoti but its padas is ‘sandal, shoe’ (not foot).
The IE cognates for “daughter” present a similar case. S duhitṛ for daughter is the √duh and the suffixes i-tṛ, as in pitṛ ‘father’, aritṛ ‘rower’, aśitṛ ‘eater’ etc. The verb is duḥ- > dogdhi ‘extracts, milks’ (hence duhitṛ = milkmaid!). Gk thugatēr, Gmc tohter, Sl dušti and Oscan (old Italic) futir , have no other plausible cognates in their total diction. Surprisingly neither Latin nor Hittite have any cognations for IE daughter! The others have the noun but not the verb.
- I could give dozens of more cases which show this organic coherence in Sanskrit, which is totally absent in other IE tongues (See my 2015: ch 2). In another paper, “Rigvedic All-comprehensiveness”, I show that most of the significant cultural and linguistic IE features common in the other IE cultures are found in the Ṛgveda. All other branches show enormous losses in all respects – except erosion.
Is this aspect known and studied in depth by IEean comparativists? Perhaps. But they do not draw the natural conclusion that Sanskrit alone should be the basis for PIE. The other languages are made up of highly eroded and fragmented materials. In my view all the mainstream academic publications on the subject of reconstructing PIE are worthless.
Edmund Leach, provost of King’s College Cambridge, wrote many years ago: “Because of their commitment to a unilateral segmentary history of language development that needed to be mapped onto the ground, the philologists took it for granted that proto-Indo-Iranian was a language that had originated outside India or Iran…. From this we derived the myth of the Aryan invasions”. But he went further: “Indo-European scholars should have scrapped their historical reconstructions and started again from scratch. But this is not what happened. Vested interests and academic posts were involved” (Leach 1990:238).
I am afraid that the edifice of IE linguistics and reconstructions continues to be based on those “vested interests”.
Burrow T. 1973 The Sanskrit Language, London, Faber & Faber.
Clackson J. 2007 Indo-European Linguistics, Cambridge (Brit), CUP.
2013 The Origin of the Indic Languages… The Indo-European Model, in Marcantonio (ed) 2013, ch9.
Fortson B. 2004 Indo-European Language & Culture Oxford, Blackwell.
Hock H. 1991 Principles of Historical Linguistics 2nd ed, Berlin, NY, de Gruyter.
Kazanas N. 2009 Indo-Aryan Origins… N. Delhi, Aditya Prakashan.
2015 Vedic & Indo-European Studies N. Delhi, Aditya Prakashan.
Leach E . 1990 “Aryan invasions over four millennia” in Culture through Time (ed) E. Ohnuki-Tierney, Stanford, Stanford University (227-245).
Marcantonio A. 2009 (ed) The Indo-European Language Family: Questions about its StatusWashington, Journal of IE Studies Monograph Series No 55. «Most reconstructions are artefacts».
2013 (ed with Girish Nath Jha) Perspectives on the Origin of Indian Civilisation N. Delhi, D.K. Printworld; Center for Indic Studies, Univ. of Massachussets, Dartmouth (MA).
Ringe Don 2004 in Woodword R. (ed) The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the World’s Ancient Languages, Cambridge (Brit), CUP.
Ritt N. 2004 Selfish Sounds & Linguistics… Cambridge (Brit), CUP
Szemerényi O. 1996 Introduction to Indo-European Linguistics (1990 transl from German) Oxford, OUP.
Watkins C. 2000 The American Heritage Dictionary of Indo-European Roots Boston/NY, H. Mifflin Co.
Mirror: http://indiafacts.org/fallacies-proto-indo-european-2/
http://indiafacts.org/fallacies-proto-indo-european/
'Vedic and Avestan' by N. Kazanas
In this essay the author examines independent linguistic evidence, often provided by iranianists like R. Beekes, and arrives at the conclusion that the Avesta, even its older parts (the gaθas), is much later than the Rigveda. Also, of course, that Vedic is more archaic than Avestan and that it was not the Indoaryans who moved away from the common Indo-Iranian habitat into the Region of the Seven Rivers, but the Iranians broke off and eventually settled and spread in ancient Iran.
Vedic and Avestan was first published in Vedic Venues: Journal of the Continuity of Vedic Culture 2012, vol 1, published by Aditya Prakashan for the Kothari Charity Trust.
'Diffusion of Indo-European Theonyms: what they show us'
This paper was published in the Quarterly Journal of the Mythic Society (Bangalore) Vol 97, No 1 (Jan-March 2006).
In presenting this collection of 20 Vedic and Indo-European theonyms the writer discusses the derivation of some and argue that, since the Rigveda alone contains all these names, it must be older than other IndoEuropean texts and more clearly indicative of the Proto-Indo-European culture, while Vedic is both older and closer to Proto-Indo-European than any other branch. Moreover, since the RV is richer in cultural and linguistic elements than other early IE traditions we can conclude that the Vedic speakers moved very little or not at all from the PIE homeland. These ideas have been published elsewhere and attracted some criticism mainly from J. P. Mallory; this is now being refuted.
'Sanskrit and Proto-Indo-European' by N. Kazanas
This essay is published in 2004 Indian Linguistics. It challenges many generally accepted notions in IndoEuropean linguistics like the 5-grade ablaut, labio-velar sounds, roots etc. At the same time it discloses the great antiquity of Sanskrit (or Vedic) and argues that the Sanskrit retroflex sounds are ProtoIndoEuropean, but lost in the other IE stocks.
'Coherence and Preservation in Sanskrit'
Published in VVRI 2006 (Updated Feb 2012)
This paper examines more than 400 lexical items that have cognations in 3 or more IE branches (Vedic, Greek, Italic etc) and denote as far as possible invariable things, qualities and activities (bodily parts, relations and actions like breathing, dressing, rising etc). Sanskrit appears to have lost far fewer items and preserves much greater inner organic coherence than the other branches. This supports the general idea that Sanskrit is much closer to Proto-Indo-European and that, since this could happen only in sedentary conditions, the Indoaryan speakers of Sanskrit did not move (much) from the original homeland. Moreover, the criticism that this conclusion does not take into account the large literature in Sanskrit is shown to be fallacious. This collection of words is a good treasury for any comparisons.
'The RV is pre-Harappan'
This paper was presented as a talk in June 2006 at the Center for Indic Studies in the University of Massachusetts.
This paper presents the evidences and arguments for a Rigveda composed in its bulk in the 4th millennium BCE. A basic consideration (but not the only one) is that the RV has no knowledge at all of many features that characterise the Harappan culture which began to emerge solidly c3000. Since the bulk of the RV must be assigned to a period before 3000 and since this is by general consensus stated to have been composed in Saptasindhu, then the Indoaryans or Vedic people were present in that location before 3000 and must therefore be regarded as indigenous by 1500, when, they are alleged to move in by the Aryan Invasion/Immigration Theory.
'A new date for the Rgveda', by N. Kazanas.
This was published in Philosophy and Chronology, 2000, ed G C Pande & D Krishna, special issue of Journal of Indian Coucil of Philosophical Research (June, 2001). A shorter, slightly different version with the title 'The Rgveda and Indo-Europeans' by N Kazanas was published in the Annals of the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute (ABORI), vol 80, 1999 (Pune, India, 2000). It presents the thesis that the RV is far older than mainstream indologists maintain and ascribes the composition of the bulk of it to the fourth millennium BC (some hymns even earlier). It argues that the IndoAryans were natives of Saptasindhu (ie the land of the Seven Rivers in what is today north-west India and Pakistan) examining archaeological, literary, linguistic and comparative-mythological material. Some of the arguments would need reformulation in view of new and firmer (mainly archaeoastronomical) evidence, which in fact reinforce the conlusions on the early date of the RV.
'The RV Date - a Postscript', by N. Kazanas
This examines some of Prof M Witzel's (erroneous) notions which perpetuate the AIT (=Aryan Invasion Theory) and which had not been discussed in 'The RV and IndoEuropeans'. It presents some new evidence and new ideas for a pre-3100 BC date of the RV and the indigenous origin of the IndoAryans and criticizes Prof Witzel's vicious attacks on some Indian and non-Indian scholars, who promote the indigenist point of view.
'Indigenous Indoaryans and the Rigveda', by N. Kazanas
In this paper I argue that the IndoAryans (IA hereafter) are indigenous from at least 4500 (all dates are BCE except when otherwise stated) and possibly 7000. In this effort are utilized the latest archaeological finds and data from Archaeoastronomy, Anthropology and Palaeontology. I use in addition neglected cultural and linguistic evidence. I find no evidence at all for an invasion. The new term "migration" is a misnomer since a migration could not have produced the results found in that area. The Rigveda (=RV) is neither post-Harappan nor contemporaneous with the ISC but much earlier, ie from the 4th millennium (with minor exceptions) and perhaps before.
The bibliography of this study is available as a separate pdf file.
This paper was published in the Journal of IndoEuropean Studies 2002.
'Indo-Aryan indigenism and the Aryan Invasion Theory arguments' (refuted)
by N. Kazanas
This paper examines the general IndoEuropean issue and argues in favour of Indoaryan indigenism against the AIT (Aryan Invasion/Immigration Theory) which has been mainstream doctrine for more than a century. The extreme positions that there was no ProtoIndoEuropean (PIE) language or that this language is as currently reconstructed are refuted: the evidence suggests there was a PIE language but this cannot be reconstructed and all efforts and confidence in this reconstruction are misplaced. Indeed, all reconstructions of Proto-languages seem futile and, since they are in no way verifiable, should not be used as evidence for historical events. Indeed all the data used as evidence by the AIT are wholly conjectural and arbitrary and often consist of misrepresentations and distortions, as will be clearly demonstrated in detail. All the arguments used for the AIT have been analytically presented by E. Bryant (2001) and summed up in his concluding chapter. These will be examined one by one and shown to be fallacious. We shall also refer to some material not in Bryant - e.g. genetic studies after 2001CE and mythological motifs never examined in this connection.
'Vedic Religio-philosophical Thought', Sept. 2003
Part A of the study Vedic, Mesopotamian and Egyptian Religiophilosophical Thought (in print by PHISPC in the volume Chain of Golden Civilizations).
This paper is a study of Vedic thought tracing the theme of One and Many and Man's Self-realization from the RV to the Upanishads. In this the writer examines some ideas about the nature of 'civilization' and traces a unifying thread running through the RV, AV, Brahmanas and Upanishads, i.e. man's return to his source which is the Supreme Godhead, Itself unmanifest but the Primal Cause of all manifestations.
'Advaita & Gnosticism', by N. Kazanas
A study on the possible connection between the ancient Indian philosophical system Advaita (an aspect of Vedanta) and certain ideas that circulated in the first two centuries of the Christian Era in the Easter Mediterranean and particularly in Egypt. Also, an attempt to trace great philosophical ideas e.g. The Unity of Being, The identity of Man's self with the Godhead, etc in Hermetic texts, Vedanta, Christianity, Gnostic writings, Judaism, Greek Thought and Egyptian culture.
Published in VVRI Research Bulletin (Hoshiarpur) vol 2 (43-112), 2003.
'Philosophy and Selfrealization in the Rgveda', by N. Kazanas
This paper presents evidence that man's highest good, the shreyas, as taught by the Bhagavad Gitaa and the Upanishads, the aatmajNaana 'Self-knowledge', brahmajNaana'knowledge of the Absolute', moksha 'liberation' of the Vedaanta and related themes, are already present in the RV (=Rigveda), not just as spermatic ideas but very fully. Only the terminology differs.
This paper was published in 2005 in D.P. Chattopadhyaya (ed) Self, Society and Science...PHISPC, Centre for Studies in Civilizations, N. Delhi.
'Indo-European Deities and the Rigveda', by N. Kazanas
This paper was published in the Journal of IndoEuropean Studies 2001. In this paper are examined the names of various deities that appear in two or more branches of the Indo-European family. The examination shows that the Rigveda contains more of these deities than any other branch of mythology. The elements examined are the names of certain deities which appear in two or more branches and are demonstrably not borrowings of one from another at some later period. We concentrate on names of deities because these indicate immediate correlation and provide a firm criterion for the common origin. Interpretation and speculation are kept to the barest minimum. The IE branches to be examined are Vedic, Avestan, Hittite, Greek, Roman, Slavonic, Baltic, Germanic and Celtic; also some additional evidence from the Mitanni and the Kassites in the Near East. The Germanic branch comprises some early Germanic material (reported by Roman authors), some Anglo-Saxon and the later, richer Scandinavian lore. The Celtic branch consists of early Gallic (again reported mainly by Romans), Britannic, Welsh and Irish. (Other IE branches like Armenian, Tocharian, etc, provide negligible relevant material.)http://www.omilosmeleton.gr/pdf/en/indology/IDR.pdf
'Vedic and Mesopotamian Cross-influences'.
Published in Migration & Diffusion (Vienna) 2005 and after some minor revisions it was subsequently published by the Adyar Library Bulletin (2006: Olcott commemorative issue). This was incorporated in the study Vedic, Mesopotamian and Egyptian Religiophilosophical Thought (in print by PHISPC in the volume Chain of Golden Civilizations)
'Homer, Hesiod and the Mahabharata', by N. Kazanas
In this paper I examine some legends of archaic Greek literature (texts ascribed to Homer and Hesiod) and their relationship to the Indian epic Mahaabhaarata (MB, hereafter). One is the parallel of Penelope's archery contest, set for her suitors (Odyssey 19, 171ff) and Draupadi's svayam-vara 'choice of husband', which also entails an archery contest (MB I, 175-180); the parallels of Damayanti's svayam-varas in the story of Nala (MB III, 50-55 and 68) will also be discussed. A second parallel will be the Peleus-Thetis marriage in the Iliadand subsequent sources and that of Santanu-Gangaa (MB I, 91-3). A third parallel is the Five Races in Hesiod' s Works and Days 109-201 and the Four Ages or Yugas in MB III, 148 and 186-9. Another parallel is that of Dionysus being born out of Zeus's thigh (GM 1: 56) and of Aurva springing out of his mother's thigh (MB I, 169-71).
These parallels have been noted and discussed in the past from different viewpoints. I believe they deserve another close look which reveals two things. First, a consideration of the probable dates of composition of the Greek poems and of the Indian epic shows that these tales are independent, involving no borrowing by one culture from the other; they are therefore of common IE origin. Second, such considerations highlight the need for revision of the chronology of ancient Indian texts and the fact that the MB contains considerable early material; this material consists of myths current in the Vedic period but only briefly or sporadically referred to by the Vedic texts. Much, if not most, of the MB seems to be much older than is generally thought, even though, in its present form it was written down perhaps in the third or second century BCE - and some sections even later.
'Indo-European Linguistics and Indo-Aryan Indigenism' by N. Kazanas
The essay Indo-European Linguistics and Indo-Aryan Indigenism is included in the book Indo-Aryan Origins and other Vedic Issues written by N. Kazanas, ed. Aditya Prakashan, Dec 2009, N. Delhi. It examines the general IE issue and argues in favour of Indoaryan indigenism against the AIT (Aryan Invasion/Immigration Theory) which has been mainstream doctrine for more than a century. The extreme positions that there was no PIE(=Proto-Indo-European) language or that this language is as currently reconstructed are refuted: the evidence suggests there was a PIE language but this cannot be reconstructed and all efforts in this reconstruction are misplaced. Since they are in no way verifiable, they should not be used as evidence for historical events. It is admitted even by rabid Indian nationalists that humans came to India from Africa sometime in the Pleistocene, and now there is evidence of change in the skeletal record of the region indicating that a new people may have entered c 6000-4500; even so, if these people were the IAs(=Indoaryans), they must, surely, be regarded as indigenous by 1700. Recent genetic studies do not suggest any entry of IAs within the last 10 000 years but state that the European peoples came out of South Asia after 50 000 B(efore)P(resent). Apart from such studies, other kinds of evidence and arguments will be used in full to demonstrate indigenism.
'Archaic Greece and the Veda' by N. Kazanas
This paper examines many parallels in the archaic Greek culture and the Vedic one. These are themes, poetic techniques, motifs and ideas in literature, mythology, philosophy, religion and ritual. For example, it is obvious that the names Zeus (Gr) and Dyaus (Vedic) are closely related. As in Greek mythology there is dog Kerberos guarding the entrance to Hades, so in the Vedic myths there are two dogs watching the path to Yama's netherworld. Many of these parallels have affinities with similar motifs in other Indo-european cultures like Celtic, Germanic and so on. Most classicists ignore these affinities or similarities and claim ( as W. Burkert does extensively) that many such elements in the Greek culture derive from Near-eastern sources. Thus Burkert thinks that the practice in Greece of having a young man or a seer sprinkling with a branch of laurel or tamarisk a polluted person or place came from Mesopotamia. However, the same practice is found in early Vedic texts where an apamarga branch is used. Consequently this paper argues with many examples that where such motifs and practices in Greece are found in the Vedic and other Indo-european cultures, they are most probably inherited forms from the Proto-Indo-European period before the dispersal of the various branches.
'Anatolian Bull and Vedic Horse'
'Anatolian Bull and Vedic Horse' was first published in the Adyar Library Bulletin (2003) but this version is revised and expanded.
In this paper the writer examines the presence of bull and horse in the various IE branches. It is noteworthy that the IE stem for 'horse' is absent in Hittite while all other major branches have it. The horse has no place at all in the religion, ritual or mythology; the horse's function is taken over by the bull. This alone suffices to show that the Hittites are not indigenous in Anatolia as some scholars claim and that therefore, Anatolia is not the original PIE homeland. Other types of evidence are used from mythology and linguistics to support this conclusion. The myth of the Weather god killing the dragon, which is a common IE theme (India, Greece, Scandinavia etc), is quite swamped by Near-eastern material. The Hittite language itself has some IE relics but is otherwise flooded with Mesopotamian, Hurrian and Assyrian elements.
'Vedic and Egyptian Affinities'
This paper was written independently in 2002 and has been published in 2006 in Puratattva. This piece was incorporated in the study Vedic, Mesopotamian and Egyptian Religiophilosophical Thought (in print by PHISPC in the volume Chain of Golden Civilizations)
There are more than 20 motifs/themes exhibiting close affinities in the religious texts of the Vedic and Egyptian peoples. Some like the Sungod's boat, the Water as a primal cosmogonic element, the Cow of plenty and the sacred Bull are common to the Mesopotamian culture too. Some are quite extraordinary and occur only here with some weak echoes in other Indoeuropean branches: the lotus-born one, the eye running off, etc, including many elements in the famous Isis-Osiris tale. These affinities are close and suggest either a common origin for both cultures or cross influences. However, most of the motifs, including the Isis-Osiris and Yama tales, have correspondences in other IE traditions: this fact suggests that the motifs are inherited in the Vedic texts and not borrowed from Egypt. Thus we must conclude either that Saptasindhu, the land of the Vedic people, influenced Egypt or that both cultures derive or borrow from a third unknown one. The former case is difficult to determine as there is no firm evidence for an early contact between Egypt and Saptasindhu. Consequently, without entirely ruling out the possibility of Vedic influences on Egyptian culture we must assume a devolution from an older unknown civilization.
'Plato and the Upanishads' by N. Kazanas
Plato and Upanishads has been published in 2005 by The Adyar Library and Research
Center, Chennai, India. Prof. Kazanas examines here some apparent and significant
similarities as well as some important differences between the Dialogues of Plato and the
(early) Upanishads. The essay is quite scholarly and readable.
'Philosophy in Hellenistic and Roman Times' by N. Kazanas
This study examines the main philosophical trends after Socrates, Plato and Aristotle. It includes the Cynics and other Socratic offshoots; the Epicureans, the Stoics and the Sceptics; Also certain individuals like Cicero, Seneca, Philo (Alex), Plutarch et al. It attempts to extract Christ's teaching itself from the early sources ignoring the usual theological doctrines; the Gnostic texts are also examined in this connection. It ends with a look at Plotinos and the subsequent Neoplatonists.
'Greek Philosophy up to Aristotle' by N. Kazanas, November 2003
This study outlines the philosophical ideas in Ancient Greece from the Homeric epics to Aristotle examining briefly the essential views of every thinker. Of course, with the Pre-socratics one relies only on the extant fragments. (It is to be published in India by the PHISPC).
"Shamans, Religion, Soma & the RV" by N. Kazanas
It is almost universally assumed that religion began with animistic beliefs and practices and/or the attribution of divine powers to natural forces (lightning, wind etc). It is also assumed generally that shamans through ingestion of substances and/or dancing achieve higher states of consciousness and greater powers. All such notions are derived from the assumptions of early anthropologists that certain peoples they met are "primitive" and that it is from their beliefs and practices that modern religions arose. The Rgveda provides altogether different evidences that refute these assumptions. In its hymns all deities are said to be expressions of The One and higher states could be achieved through specific practices, meditation and ethical behaviour. So called primitives may well be devolving or degenerate forms of former advanced peoples.
It was first published in Kazanas 2015, Vedic and Indo European Studies, New Delhi, Aditya Prakashan.
"Thomas McEvilley (; July 13, 1939 – March 2, 2013) was an American art critic, poet, novelist, and scholar. He was a Distinguished Lecturer in Art History at Rice University and founder and former chair of the Department of Art Criticism and Writing at the School of Visual Arts in New York City. ...In The Shape of Ancient Thought, McEvilley explores the foundations of Western civilization. He argues that today’s Western world
must be considered the product of both Greek and Indian thought, both Western philosophy
and Eastern philosophies
. He shows how trade
, imperialism
and currents of migration allowed cultural philosophies to intermingle freely throughout India, Egypt, Greece and the ancient Near East. This book spans thirty years of McEvilley's research, from 1970 to 2000."
I present below a critique by J. Nicholas Allen of the work of McEvilley.
Allen, J.Nicholas, 2005, Thomas Mcevilley: The missing dimension in: IJHSInternational Journal of Hindu Studies, 2005, 9:59-75
Nicholas Allen's principal critique is that Thomas McEvilley ignores the views of Georges Dumezll who posited Indo-European roots (or common origin) of the tripartite system of varṇa for social organization of ancient communities..
Nicholas Allen's critique is stated as follows, underlining McEvilley's failure to cite Dumezil's contrary views: "By “social structures” McEvilley is thinking of the varṇa system in Manu, the classes in Plato’s Republic, and the social organization of early Latin peoples. “But in order to account for striking comparative details, such studies must be supplemented by postulates of historical influences.” Neither Dumézil nor the relevant others are cited, and the topic scarcely surfaces again." (opcit., p.60)
Dumezil notes that Plato's Republic contains “remarkable expositions of the tripartite ideology.” Nicholas Allen observes:" Having summarized the correlations between the classes in the Republic (philosopher kings, warriors, and commoners—farmers and artisans being grouped together), the virtues (wisdom, courage, and prudence), and the metals (gold, silver, then iron and bronze), Dumézil comments that, since Pythagoras and no doubt before him, Greek philosophers had speculated a lot on social tripartition; it was a concept they retained no doubt from the Indo-European past..." opcit., (p.64)
Dumezil's views correlating 'Immortals' with 'Elements' are presented in the context of Zoroastrian Bounteous Immortals (BI or Amesa Spentas) in the following table:
Bounteous Immortal Function of B.I. Material Culture of B.I.
I Good Intention F1 bovine
II Best Righteousness F1 fire
III Desirable Dominion F2 metal
IV Bounteous Devotion F3 earth
V Wholeness F3 water
VI Life F3 plants
In this framework, the functions signified in the Veda are: Mitra-Varuṇa (F1), Indra (F2), the Aśvin twins (F3).
"McEvilley gives plenty of attention to yoga, suggesting tentatively that an early Mesopotamian doctrine diffused in both directions and that the Indian variety, after elaboration, spread back west to Greece in the sixth century BCE (287). But the network of similarities between Arjuna’s ascent to heaven in Mahābhārata Book 3, Odysseus’ passage to Scheria in Odyssey Book 5, and the yogin’s undertaking in Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad and Patañjali (Allen 1998a) suggests that the protonarrative told of a cosmic/shamanic journey, presumably relating to shamanic practice, that somehow fed into yoga. It is not clear at what stage or stages the shamanic tradition underwent the interiorization that characterizes yoga, where this occurred, or whether it was a process that essentially occurred just once or one that occurred in parallel in different branches of the tradition. Even so, discussion of the shamanism-yoga complex needs to take account of the Indo-European common origin hypothesis which, here again, can relate to striking details. For instance, the references to thistles and chaff in the Odyssey passage are cognate with Patañjali’s references to thorns or cotton fibers." (opcit., p.70-71)
Dumézil, Georges. 1941, Jupiter, Mars, Quirinus. Volume 1: Essai sur la conception indo-européennes de al Souveraineté. Paris: Gallimard.
Dumézil, Georges. 1968. Mythe et épopée. Volume 1: L’idéologie des trois fonctions dans les épopées des peuples indo-européens. Paris: Gallimard.
Dumézil, Georges. 1973 [1959]. Gods of the Ancient Northmen (ed. Einar Haugen, trans. Alan Toth ). Berkeley: University of California Press.
Dumézil, Georges. 1981 [1973]. Mythe et épopée. Volume 3: Histoires romaines. Paris: Gallimard.
Dumézil, Georges. 1982 [1971]. Mythe et épopée. Volume 2: Types épiques indoeuropéens: un héros, un sorcier, un roi. Paris: Gallimard.
Dumézil, Georges. 1977. Les dieux souverains des indo-européens. Paris: Gallimard.
Dumézil, Georges. 1985a [1969]. Heur et malheur du guerrier: aspects de la fonction guerrière chez les indo-européens. Paris: Flammarion.
Dumézil, Georges. 1985b. L’oubli de l’homme et l’honneur des dieux: esquisses de mythologie. Paris: Gallimard.
Dumézil, Georges. 1994. Le roman des jumeaux: esquisses de mythologie (ed.Joël H. Grisward). Paris: Gallimard.
Dumézil, Georges. 2000. Mythes et dieux de la Scandinavie ancienne (ed.François-Xavier Dillmann). Paris: Gallimard.
Jeffrey Gold - 1996 - Philosophy East and West 46 (1):17-32.