From 'The History of Early India' -(From the Origins to AD1300) by minent Indian historian Romila Thapar.
(She is Emeritus Prof in History @JNU,NewDelhi.. A scholar Who is well respected in the West and in India.
with honourary doctorates from Oxford,Chicago, Paris etc.. and was visiting prof @Cornell..)
She very skillfully weaves together pieces from historical/textual/linguistic/archeological
"evidences" and articulates her analysis and interpretations- which are vibrantly explained with contexts!!,
and argues in a very reasonable way, and very readable for the non-academic..
She also makes it clear wherever applicable, what CANNOT be ascertained because of lack of any evidence.
The introduction to the book itself is Brilliant in general, giving a good perspective on history and interpretation: A para from it-
[The starting point in the history of a society, has to be familiar with its
historiography-- the history of historical interpretations itself.
This provides the recognition of the intellectual context of history, instead of preference for just a narration of events. It is NOT "just a narration of events", but by familiarising the reader with the
context wherever applicable, "encourages a more sensitive understanding of the past".
The awareness of historiography has contributed substantially to the change in understanding Indian history over the last half-century.
]
In the introductions, it elaborates on the "inaccurate" usage of the term "The Aryans" to refer to "a race"..
(If you'd like to read the relevant pages from the book, Please click on the images to enlarge )
From the intro: "To refer to 'the Aryans' as a race is therefore inaccurate. The racial identities of speakers of Indo-Aryan languages are not known"
"Indo-Aryans spread gradually over Northern India, incorporating some elements of Austro-Asiatic & Dravidian.Indo-Aryan is in fact a language lablel indicating a speech-group of Indo-European family, and is NOT a racial term. To refer to 'The Aryans' as a race is therefore inaccurate. The racial identities of the speakers of the Indo-Aryan languages are NOT KNOWN."
..
In the chapter detailing history from around 1200~600 BC, it talks about the migration of the people from areas around Iran to settle in Northern India.
.
The rise of the Indo-Aryan language group, after the decline of the Indus Civilization by the mid of the 2nd millennium BC..
 |
| Migration into Northern India from around Iran/Persia. This makes me think of one interesting aspect: That.. the first wave of "migrations" from west Asia in roughly around 1500 BC brought Indo-Aryan language/old form of Sanskrit to India.. which, mixed with indigenous influences gave rise to Hindu Culture..The second wave of "invasions"from west Asia around 1500AD by the Mughals spread the Muslim Culture widely.. |
|
+
THE CONTEXT OF THE RIG VEDA
(If you'd like to read the relevant pages from the book, Please click on the images to enlarge )
From the section, "The Context of the Rig-Veda" [Chapter: TOWARDS CHIEFDOMS & KINGDOMS, from The History of Early India, by Romila Thapar ]
The connection between Iran and north India on the other hand are close. The language of the Avesta [The text of Zoroastrianism] and Indo-Aryan language were cognates, descended from the same ancestral language. The date of the Avesta has been controversial, but a mid-2nd millennium BC is now accepted. The linguistic relationship between the 2 includes not just words, but also concepts. The interchangeability between 'h' and 's' is one of the differences, but there is a consistency in this change such as haoma, daha, hepta hindu, ahura in Avestan, and soma, dasa, sapta sindhu, asura in Rig-Vedic Sanskrit. In terms of religious concepts the attributes of gods are often reversed. Thus Indra is demonic in the Avesta, as are daevas (devas or gods in Sanskrit) and Ahura/asura emerges as the highest diety.
This has led to the theory that originally the Old Iranian and Indo-Aryan speakers were a single group but dissensions led to their splitting up. It was then that the Indo-Aryan speakers living in the Indo-Iranian border lands and the Haraxvati (Sarasvati) area of Afghanistan gradually migrated to the Indus plain, bringing with them their language, rituals and social customs, to settle as agro-pasteralists in the sapta-sindhu area, as described in the Rig-Veda, later merging with the local population.
This reconstruction tallies upto a point with the archaeological evidence. If the presence of Indo-Aryan speakers is indicated by the presence of horse-- which was central to both action and ritual in the Rig-Veda-- then it dates to the early 2nd millennium BC in the subcontinent, the horse being virtually absent in the Mature Harappan period (2500-1700BC). The lack of bones and representations (of horse, at Indus Civilisation sites) points to its being an unfamiliar animal.
(The horse and chariot, introduced from central Asia, became common in west Asia in the 2nd millennium BC, suggesting a correlation between the arrival of the horses and of the Indo-Aryan speaking people into India from west Asia. )
Recently, (GOING AGAINST EVIDENCES, and overlooking the data from from linguistics and NOT showing an analytical understanding of the archaeological evidences,) some have argued that the date of the Rig-Veda should be taken back to Harappan or even pre-Harappan times, and that its authors be equated with the creators of the Indus Civilization-- This theory would then support that the authors of Rig-Veda were indigenous to northern India, and also the Indo-Aryan language.
But artefacts and monuments of the Harappa culture are NOT described in the Rig-Veda; Concepts implicit in organizing the Harappan/Indus Civilization system of urban settlements have NO counterparts in the Rig-Veda. Many scholars have described what they regard as the essential characteristics of Harappan urbanism, which they have found to be ABSENT in the Rig-Veda : Cities with grid-pattern in town plan, extensive mud-brick platforms as base for large structures, monumental buildings,complex fortifications, elaborate drainage system, use of mud-bricks and fire-bricks in buildings, granaries and warehouses, a tank for rituals, and remains associated with extensive craft activity related to manufacturing of copper ingots, etched carnelian beads, the cutting of steatite seals, terracotta female figurines thought to be godesses, and suchlike.
Labels: #AncientPersia, #EarlyIndia, #Hinduism, #India, #IndianHistory, #RigVeda, #RomilaThapar, #Vedas, #Zarathustra, #Zoroastrianism, Aryan, HISTORY, India, Vedas
.
