Sanskrit origin and spread

Sanskrit origin and spread

Abstract

Many controversies accompany the question of the origin of Sanskrit; my theory is that it was the language of Anatolian priests and had spread by diffusion to northern steppes. Ukraine was a secondary centre, from where it had spread all over the world through violence and conquest, as proved by the research work of David Reich. The research work of David explains the genetic spread of IE into India in two waves, first in 4000 BC and the second wave in 2000BC. At the same time, the hypothesis of Colin Renfrew goes much deeper into 8000BC for the origin of Indo-European languages.

Figure 1: Priest king of IVC -Picture courtesy (Wikipedia).

The Indus priests depicted in the small statue shows more Middle-eastern features than Aryan features. Big lips and big eyes are typical of Middle-eastern race. The naked dancer statue depicts a wholly African looking girl. Thus, Indus priests are looking more of Sumerian origin than that of the Indo-European race.

My decipherment effort of IVC script shows that the Indus script was a mixture of Egyptian hieroglyphics and Vedic ritual ideas. (1) (2) Even though the Vedic ideas are visible, it was a Vedic culture before the steppe people and their horses.

All the elements of Vedic culture are seen in IVC seal inscriptions, except the horse. The genetic study of David Reich confirms the two waves of Aryan immigration. (3) It shows that the first group of IE migration was from Iran around 4000 BC. It is likely they did not know about the horse but spoke some IE language. But the second immigration of IE people was around 2000BC from the steppe is definitely along with the horse, and Rig Veda was an amalgamated version of the religious ideas of both waves of Aryans. The book of Tony Joseph, ‘Early Indians’, also follows the research findings of David Reich. (4)

Neolithic farmers – Cavali Sforza

The first scholar to hypothesize a large-scale Neolithic migration, based on genetic evidence, was Cavalli-Sforza. He discovered many exciting clues about the genetic makeup of Europeans. Although being very genetically homogeneous, several patterns did exist.

The most important discovery was that he found the population spread from Anatolia into Greece, Italy, and France. He attributed this to the spread of agriculture from the Middle East circa 10,000BC to 6,000BC. This pattern represented the most significant (28%) component of total European genetic variation.

Map 1: Map showing the movement direction of megalithic farmers.

Map courtesy -Wikipedia

Such a demographic expansion might have been propagated by the technological developments affecting food availability (in this case), giving the farmers an advantage over the relatively small-sized Palaeolithic population. (5)

Anatolian hypothesis

Colin Renfrew proposes the Anatolian hypothesis, and it postulates that the dispersal of Proto-Indo-Europeans originated in Neolithic Anatolia. The theory suggests that the speakers of the Proto-Indo-European (PIE) lived in Anatolia during the Neolithic era and associates the distribution of ancient Indo-European languages with the expansion during the Neolithic revolution during the 7000 BC and 6000 BC millennia. (6)

Map 2: IE Migration as per Renfrew hypothesis.

Map courtesy -Wikipedia

The Anatolian hypothesis’ chief proponent was Colin Renfrew. He suggested a peaceful Indo-Europeanization of Europe from Anatolia from around 7000 BC with the advance of farming by demic diffusion (“wave of advance”). Accordingly, most of the inhabitants of Neolithic Europe would have spoken Indo-European tongues, and later migrations would at best have replaced Indo-European dialects with other Indo-European dialects. The main strength of the farming hypothesis lies in its linking of the spread of Indo-European languages with an archaeologically known event of the expansion of farming activity. The proliferation of farming activity involved a significant amount of population shifts. (7) (51)

Kurgan hypothesis

The Kurgan hypothesis is a model of early Indo-European, which postulates that the people of Kurgan culture of the Pontic region were the most likely speakers of the reconstructed Proto-Indo-European language. The Kurgan hypothesis was first formulated in the 1950s by Marija Gimbutas.

When it was first proposed in 1956, Marija Gimbutas contribution to the search for Indo-European origins was a pioneering inter-disciplinary synthesis of archaeology and linguistics. The Kurgan model of Indo-European roots identifies the Pontic-Caspian as the Proto-Indo-European (PIE) homeland. A variety of late PIE dialects are assumed to have been spoken across the region. According to this model, the Kurgan culture gradually expanded until it encompassed the entire Pontic-Caspian steppe. (7)

Map 3: IE migration as per the Kurgan hypothesis.

Map courtesy – Wikipedia.

Kurgan culture

Grouping archaeological cultures are complicated; the dividing line between one culture and the next cannot be drawn accurately. Gimbutas defined and introduced the term “Kurgan culture” in 1956, intending to introduce a “broader term” that would combine all the IE cultures in Southern Russia. The model of a “Kurgan culture” postulates cultural similarity between the various cultures of the Copper Age to Early Bronze Age (5th to 3rd millennia BC) Pontic-Caspian steppe to justify the identification as a single archaeological or cultural horizon.

The comparison of cultural similarities of these cultures is a question of archaeology, independent of hypotheses regarding the Proto-Indo-European language. Marija Gimbutas suggested that the 5th millennium “cultural similarities” was the basis of the “Kurgan model”. This model identifies the copper age (5th millennium) Pontic-Caspian steppe as the locus of Proto-Indo-European. (7) Asko Parpola, in his recent book “Roots of Hinduism”, also supports the Steppe origin theory of Indo Europeans. (8) But, in my opinion, it is only a secondary centre of PIE, not the original home PIE. The original home of PIE lies somewhere in Anatolia.

Peaceful vs violent spread

Gimbutas believed that the expansions of the Kurgan culture were a series of inherently hostile military invasions. A new warrior culture imposed itself on the peaceful, matriarchal cultures of “Old Europe”, replacing it with a patriarchal warrior society, a process visible in the appearance of fortified settlements and hillforts and the graves of warrior-chieftains.

But other historians differ and propose that the process of Indo-Europeanization was a cultural, not a physical transformation. It must be understood as a military victory in imposing a new administrative system, language and religion upon the indigenous groups. (7)

In her later life, Gimbutas increasingly emphasized the violent nature of this transition from the Mediterranean cult of the Mother Goddess to a patriarchal society and the worship of the warlike Thundergod (Zeus, Dyaus) to the point of virtually formulating feminist archaeology.

Many scholars who accept the general scenario of Indo-European migrations proposed and maintained that the transition was likely much more gradual and peaceful than suggested by Gimbutas. The movements were not a sudden, concerted military operation but the expansion of disconnected tribes and cultures, spanning many generations. To what degree the indigenous cultures were peacefully amalgamated or violently displaced remains controversial among supporters of the Kurgan hypothesis. (7)

David Reich gives the final verdict on this issue through his research work on IE genetic expansion. His research proves that the IE people from Ukraine were violent, and the spread of IE culture was through violence, as said by Marija Gimbutas. That does not mean the initial spread of IE languages from Anatolia was also violent; it could have been through peaceful means.

Renfrew’s Linguistic Time Depth

While the Kurgan scenario is widely accepted as one of the leading answers to the question of Indo-European origins, it is still a speculative model, not an ideal or standard model. The main alternative suggestion is the theory of Colin Renfrew, postulating an Anatolian and the spread of the Indo-European languages as a result of the proliferation of agriculture.

This belief implies a significantly older age of the Proto-Indo-European language (ca. 9,000 BC as opposed to ca.4000 BC). Some linguists do not support this Renfrew theory on the grounds of glottochronology^[1] (though this method of glottochronology is widely rejected as invalid by mainstream historical linguistics).

This objection of linguists has some basis because the PIE language contained words for devices primarily related to cattle-breeding and horse riding, which were invented around 5000 BC by nomadic tribes in Asian steppes. There are some difficulties in correlating the geographical distribution of the Indo-European branches with the advance of agriculture. (7)

A study in 2003 by Russell Gray and Quentin Atkinson at the University of Auckland, using a computer analysis based upon lexical data, favours an earlier date for Proto-Indo-European than assumed by the Kurgan model, ca. the 7th millennium consistent with Renfrew’s Anatolian homeland theory. Their result is based on the maximum likelihood analysis of Swadesh lists.^[2] The result of the Swadesh list run counter to many popular categorizations of linguistic relations between the different branches within the tree of the Indo-European languages. (7)

Genetic evidence

For the specific problem of the origins of Indo-European languages, Cavalli Sforza has first tried to adjust his data to the traditional model of the warlike invasion theory, claiming that the two data converged, and later has done the same with Renfrew’s model. Nevertheless, he has recently had to surrender to the latest outcome of genetic research, i.e. 80% of the genetic stock of Europeans goes back to the Palaeolithic. Bryan Sykes comments that the Neolithic farmers have been prominent, but they have only contributed about 20% of European genes. The hunters of the Palaeolithic have created the main body of the modern European gene pool. (9)

However, genetic research has not conclusively shown that modern Europeans are primarily the descendants of Palaeolithic hunters. Because modern science is still unable to extract Y-DNA haplogroups from Palaeolithic samples thus, the possibility remains that modern European haplogroups may be the result of later immigration. For more recent research findings, refer to the book of David Reich, ‘Who we are and how we got here.’ (3)

Language–Sanskrit

There is a general feeling that Sanskrit came along with Indo Europeans of Southern Russia. There is a possibility that the Sanskrit language existed along with the other common colloquial language as the language of the elites and priests.

The elite groups had many tactics to maintain their identity and exclusiveness. Some strategies are dress style (like modern-day designer clothes), hairstyle (head bun style for the elite and standard crew cut for regular class), head bun style was the sign of elite category in Egypt, Mesopotamia and India. Similarly, the Indus priest statue also depicts hair bun style, but the ultimate instrument of exclusiveness was language.

In the modern-day example, if a province wants to separate from an existing nation, language is the first ideology used in creating division and dividing people. Similarly, language is a potential weapon in creating a separate, exclusive identity to the elite class. It is possible that Sanskrit existed side by side along with the Dravidian language in Indus valley culture.

The language helps in creating an identity for a section of people. And that distinctiveness brings prosperity to that section of people. They have a vested interest in maintaining the exclusivity of that language, and that is the reason for the creation and survival of the Sanskrit language. In addition to it, there was a need for developing a common international language so that different nations could communicate with each other. Sanskrit fulfilled all these requirements.

Palaeolithic continuity theory and Anatolian hypothesis are in concurrence with the Anatolian origin of Sanskrit. Renfrew’s Anatolian hypothesis also coincides with this view because the PIE source was somewhere in the heart of Anatolia.

Demotic and common script

In Egypt, two forms of scripts existed side by side; one was the language of ordinary people called demotic. Another script was of priestly language called hieratic, closely related to Hieroglyphic. Initially, the demotic or hieroglyphic scripts could not be deciphered. During the Napoleonic war in Egypt, the Rosetta stone was found. Jean-Francois Champollion announced the transliteration of the Egyptian scripts in Paris in 1822

Similar is the case of Sanskrit. It has always been called the language of the gods, given by gods. It was spoken only by priestly class and was understood only by them. But the point is that this elite language simultaneously existed side by side with the other Dravidian languages of the ordinary people. Because of that exclusivity, it is a dying language in India.

The reason for the widespread distribution of the Indo European languages is that, wherever the priestly class moved in, the priestly language also has spread. It is likely that this spread was not by physical conquest but was a peaceful spread by cultural diffusion. Even in a new territory like the southern steppe and subsequent spread, the language might have first entered Southern Russia from Anatolia. But after coming into the south steppe, it took the form of physical domination in the hands of Indo-Europeans of Southern Steppe.

The latter-day genetic spread of M-17 genes should not be considered as the only criteria. The secondary spread of Indo-European languages may be by physical violence, but cultural diffusion began, which does not leave any genetic trace, only cultural evidence. This paper follows the pattern proposed by Renfrew. (10)

The theory of Marija Gimbutas has a flaw in it because it explains only the spread of Kurgan culture after 3000 BC. But the proliferation of agriculturist theory proposed by Cavalli Sforza proved that highly advanced civilization existed in 10,000 BC. These early farmers created the megalithic society of Europe and Asia as well as the central American cultures. And they started moving into all cultivable areas of the entire European continent.

There are many remarkable similarities in various features of these transatlantic Mesoamerican cultures and megalithic cultures of Europe, the building of pyramids, calendars, human sacrifice and others. It looks like that the megalithic culture of Europe had spread to Mesoamerica through the maritime cultures of the European Atlantic Sea Coast, and the contact between these cultures was snapped because of some unforeseen disaster, most probably the eruption of Santorini and ensuing tsunami.

The disaster created by that tsunami was massive. It could have wiped out significant cities of the Mediterranean sea, which resulted in a cultural vacuum and total breakdown of ties with Central America. As a result of that disaster, the contact between these cultures had been entirely forgotten. And only being remembered as Atlantis myth. (10)

Sanskritisation

Sanskritisation is a particular form of cultural assimilation found in India. Indian sociologist M N Srinivas popularised the term to denote the process by which castes placed lower levels in the caste hierarchy seek upward mobility by emulating the rituals and practices of the upper or dominant castes.

Srinivas defined Sanskritisation as a process by which a ‘low’ or middle Hindu caste, or tribal or another group, changes its customs, ritual ideology, and way of life in the direction of a high and frequently ‘twice-born caste. After adopting the new rituals and changes, the lower status communities claimed a top position in the caste hierarchy.

One clear example of Sanskritisation is the adoption, in emulation of the practice of twice-born castes, of vegetarianism by people belonging to the so-called “low castes” who are traditionally not averse to non-vegetarian food. According to M.N. Srinivas, Sanskritisation is the adoption of new customs and habits and exposure to new religious ideas, rituals, and values appearing in Sanskrit literature. In the culmination of this process, the Sanskrit language itself is adopted as a sign of advancement. (11)

Neolithic Age

It is surprising that researchers involved in the PIE origin study discuss the iron age as if the entire human civilization started with the Iron age. They fail to understand the basic fact that man has been living in a civilized way in the old stone age itself. The only achievement of the metal age is rapid development in metal technology which brought in perceptible articles of utility, which we can find in archaeological excavations.

The relevant point to be noted here is that languages had developed in the human being in hunter-gatherer stage itself (about I lakh years ago). Linking archaeological evidence to language sources is futile because there is no proper physical evidence in the form of artefacts. For the Palaeolithic age, the evidence available is only stone tools, which give a relatively weak understanding of the old stone age.

The relevant point to be noted here is that PIE language is the language of priests, and early shamans could have developed this synthetic language in the tribal stage itself while living along with other tribal people. There is no need that only the shamans of the steppe alone could develop the PIE language.

Traditionally considered the last part of the Stone Age or The New Stone Age, the Neolithic age commenced farming, producing the “Neolithic Revolution“. It ended when metal tools became widespread (in the Copper Age or Bronze Age; or, in some geographical regions, in the Iron Age). The Neolithic age is a progression of behavioural and cultural characteristics and changes, including the use of wild and domestic crops and domesticated animals. (12)

The beginning of the Neolithic culture is considered to be in the Levant (Jericho, modern-day West Bank) about 10,200–8800 BC. By 10,200–8800 BC, farming communities arose in the Levant and spread to Asia Minor, North Africa and North Mesopotamia. Mesopotamia is the site of the earliest developments of the Neolithic Revolution from around 10,000 BC. (12)

Lingua Franca

It looks like that the PIE language was the Lingua Franca at the time of the Neolithic and Bronze age itself. Sticking to the argument that the PIE language had spread only during the Iron age is shallow. For example, in modern days, an enormous amount of time, energy and resources are being spent by many people worldwide to learn English because it is the lingua franca of the world today. Similarly, educated people all over the civilized areas of the Neolithic world would have spent a considerable part of their energy in learning the PIE language because it emerged as the lingua franca of the Neolithic age itself. Hence, the argument that the PIE languages were spread by violence is not acceptable.

The latest study on Aryan migration

The newest article on this issue of the Aryan movement is in Economist.com(2018). The article highlights the research work of David Reich of Harvard University. The report says that an accumulating pile of research using DNA from ancient human remains and modern people indicates that, around 2000BC, northwest India was infused with new blood. The newcomers appear to have shared the same roots as that of the people of southern Russia. Strikingly, too, the genetic markers identifying this group seem to be far more prevalent among modern north Indian Brahmins than among other Indians. (13) (3)

Because of the difficulty in collecting ancient DNA, such research has relied on relatively few samples until recently. But an international team of 92 scholars, including David Reich, a geneticist at Harvard University who has pioneered techniques to analyze DNA more quickly and precisely. David Reich has published the data recovered from 362 “ancient individuals” from across South and Central Asia. David has concluded that there was probably an early migration of agriculturalists into India from Iran, around 4000BC. This first wave of PIE migration was followed by a second migration around 2000BC. This second migration happened just before the Vedic Age, accompanied by a sizeable influx from southern Russia (see map). (13) (3)

Figure 2: Aryan migration route as per the latest genetic study.

Map courtesy – Economist.com and David Reich (3)

The Economist article further states that the more comprehensive study not only confirms that “Aryans” probably migrated from the steppes around the Volga and Don rivers to both India and Europe at around the same time. It also shows that their genetic markers later spread southwards across India and are indeed particularly prevalent in “groups of priestly status”. (13) (3)

1. Jeyakumar(hieroglyphics-link). Indus symbols follow the Egyptian hieroglyphics way of writing and ideas. Academia.edu. [Online] 2021. https://www.academia.edu/43722883/Indus_symbols_follow_the_Egyptian_hieroglyphics_way_of_writing_and_ideas.

2. Jeyakumar(Vedic-Yajna). Evidence of Vedic Yajna in Indus seal Inscriptions. Academia.edu. [Online] 2016. https://www.academia.edu/10973385/Evidence_of_Vedic_Yajna_in_Indus_seal_Inscriptions.

3. Reich, David. Who we are and how we got here. New York. : Pantheon books., 2018. 9781101870327.

4. Joseph, Tony. Early Indians. New Delhi. : Juggernaut Books., 2018.

5. Wikipedia(Sfroza, Cavalli). Luigi Luca Cavalli Sforza. Wikipedia.org. [Online] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luigi_Luca_Cavalli-Sforza.

6. Wikipedia(Colin_Renfrew). Colin Renfrew. Wikipedia.org. [Online] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colin_Renfrew.

7. Wikipedia(proto-Indo_Europeans). Proto Indo Europeans. Wikipedia.org. [Online] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Indo-Europeans.

8. Parpola, A. Parpola, A. (2015). The roots of Hinduism the early Aryans and the Indus civilization. New York. : Oxford University Press., 2015.

9. Sykes, B. Blood of the Isles: Exploring the genetic roots of our tribal history. London. : Corgi books., 2007.

10. jeyakumar(book). New Interpretations on Indus Valley civilization. Academia.edu. [Online] 2009. https://www.academia.edu/11101539/New_Interpretations_on_Indus_Valley_civilization.

11. Srinivas, M. N. Religion and society among the Coorgs of South India. Oxford. : Oxford University Press, 1978.

12. Wikipedia(Neolithic). Neolithic. Wikipedia.org. [Online] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neolithic.

13. Economist.com/news/asia/. Aryans did not come to India. They conquered. Economist.com/news/asia. [Online] https://www.economist.com/news/asia/21740048-aryans-did-not-come-india-they-conquered-it-new-study-squelches-treasured-theory-about.

1. . (Glottochronology means the study of language divergence dating). ↑

2. A Swadesh list is one of several lists of vocabulary with underlying meanings, developed by Morris Swadesh in the 50s. Such listings were used in lexicostatistics (quantitative language relatedness assessment) and glottochronology.

   There are two basic versions of the Swadesh list, one with 200 meanings, and the other with 100 meanings. ↑