The Birthplace of the Vedas

Rudra Chakraborty
Honors Thesis

The Birthplace of the Vedas

Rudra Chakraborty

Abstract/Overview:

In Indo-European studies, a question has encompassed much of scholarly debate ever since Western
Scholarship discovered the nature of Sanskrit and proposed a common ancestral tongue: who were the
original Indo-Europeans? Where did they come from? From Central Europe, to India, to even China,
possible locations have been proposed and shot down by the linguistic and anthropological
communities. The truth may never be known for sure, but the research has generated a number of
fascinating questions that are in equal parts interesting to reflect upon and challenging to answer. We
explore one set of questions as we attempt to trace the roots of the composition of the early Vedas, the
core texts of the Hindu Faith. We start with a brief overview of Proto Indo-European (PIE) Theory, and
move on to the Indo-Iranians, comparing the Vedas with the Zend Avesta. We also point out issues of
date and linguistic aberrations that may point to the birthplace of the Vedas lying somewhere beyond
the Indian Subcontinent, with potential additions and tackings on that may have been added throughout
the years.

On the foundings of the Proto-Indo European Theory:

The idea of relation between languages, and comparisons thereof, occurred in European History since
ancient times. Roman Scholars noted the similarities between Latin and Greek, and believed their
tongue an offshoot of Greek, perhaps prompting or at least enlivening the Hellenophile tendencies of
Roman academia. While ultimately erroneous in their assumptions, their ideas at least showed to
demonstrate that language comparison was extant in Western Scholarship, even in antiquity.

The idea of a common ancestor between Latin, Greek, and Sanskrit began to arise when Western
philologists began to study the tongues of the east. They (perhaps shockingly to them) uncovered the
similarities between a number of Sanskrit words and their classical counterparts, and began positing
a relation. The following is an oft cited quote from Sir William Jones, Anglo-Welsh philologist, made
important because his discourse is oftentimes hailed as the birth of the comparative method and of
Indo-European linguistics:

The Sanscrit language, whatever be its antiquity, is of a wonderful structure; more perfect than the
Greek, more copious than the Latin, and more exquisitely refined than either, yet bearing to both of
them a stronger affinity, both in the roots of verbs and the forms of grammar, than could possibly have
been produced by accident; so strong indeed, that no philologer could examine them all three, without
believing them to have sprung from some common source, which, perhaps, no longer exists; there is a
similar reason, though not quite so forcible, for supposing that both the Gothic and the Celtic, though
blended with a very different idiom, had the same origin with the Sanscrit; and the old Persian might
be added to the same family. 1

The languages named by Jones did indeed come to be the core languages of the Indo-European
family. With the proof of a common tongue, the scholarship of the day naturally supposed that there
must have been an original homeland whereat this common tongue was spoken, and perhaps a ProtoAryan physical appearance as well. German philologists (in the spirit that came with the New
German identity of the 18th 19th centuries, thought that German was the ancestral tongue of all
Europeans, giving rise to the term Indo-Germanic languages (a term still found in some comparative
texts today). Unfortunately, this Nordic original man that came with this linguistic supposition gave
1

Jones, Sir William (1824). Discourses delivered before the Asiatic Society: and miscellaneous papers, on the religion,
poetry, literature, etc., of the nations of India. Printed for C. S. Arnold. p. 28

rise to a great deal of racially loaded rhetoric and unfortunately yet undeniably prejudiced research
promoting Germanic Superiority, which we do not expound upon due to these facts and its ultimate
irrelevance to our purposes2.

In spite of the controversial research done by those seemingly interested in political agenda over
empirical analysis, Western research into all three of the aforementioned fields wrought a number of
interesting theories; two of which will be detailed in the following section.

The Search for the Trunk of the Many Branches:

Out of India, The Indigenous Aryan Theory:

Upon the discovery of Sanskrit and its linguistic ties to Europe, a theory arose that India was the cradle
of Indo-European civilization, supplanting biblical theories common to Late Renaissance Academia.
The metaphysicist Schelling stated What is Europe really but a sterile trunk which owes everything to
Oriental grafts? (Bryant 18). The theory seemed to hold up for quite some time (and is in truth still
staunchly defended by some Indic scholars). Sanskrit was at the time the most seemingly archaic of
the ancient tongues, bearing the most elaborate grammatical system and retaining a wealth of Proto
Indo-European phonology lost in other IE daughter branches.

Adding to its case was the reconstruction of IE at the time was largely based upon the sounds of
Sanskrit. The case was even made that Sanskrit was the root whence all other European languages were

Arthur De Gobinaeu and his Essay on the Inequality of the Human Races is one of the many scientists who founded
the school of Nordicism. While the Corded Ware Culture found from Nordic research is one of the theories on PIE
origin, we shall not touch it here due to its controversial status and the fact that it is wholly unrelated to the Indo-Iranian
birthplace we aim to investigate in this paper.

born.3 The idea that PIE language and roots were in India came to be called Indigenous Aryanism.

Fall of Indigenous Aryanism:

This Indophile phase of Western Scholarship, however, was not to last, largely and perhaps ironically
due to the same linguistic enquiries that it had wrought. The tongue of the Hittite Civilization was
deciphered at the onset of the 20th Century4 and was by the comparative method linked to IndoEuropean soon after. This discovery of demonstrably older text was a strong blow to the Indigenous
Aryan theory. Further discredit came due to the lack of ostensible Dravidian influence on other
daughter branches; which opponents argued should be the case had all PIE culture sprung from India. 5
As one quotes, ...India is most peculiar...and it would be very inexplicable that no traces of these
Indian peculiarities should have been preserved by any Celtic Race in later times, if they all had lived
in India... (Bryant 20 : 614). The linguistic evidence blent with geographical arguments came to mean
the undoing of the Indian Homeland Theory. With this position seemingly debunked, Western Scholars
turned to new insights on the homeland and tongue of the Indo-Europeans.

Gimbutas and The Kurgan Theory:

Perhaps the most well known and documented hypothesis of Proto Indo-European beginnings is what
has come to be known as the Kurgan Hypothesis (kurgan being Slavic for barrow). First popularized
by Marijas Gimbutas, the theory posits that the first PIE culture was a group of seminomadic mounted
warriors from the steppes of Ural, who having tamed the horse turned their newfound martial
3
4
5

Bryant pg 19; he himself quoting Vans Kennedy (1828), Blavatsky (1975), Halhed (letter to G. Costard quoted 1970)
Hawkins, J. D. The Arzawa Letters in Recent Perspective, British Museum Studies in Ancient Egypt and Sudan. 14, pp.
73-83 (2009)
Parpola, Asko. "Study of the Indus script", Transactions of the 50th International Conference of Eastern Studies, Tokyo:
The Th Gakkai, pp. 2866. 2005

advantage to the conquest of Europe. This hypothesis has been controversial from the beginning, even
aside from the dearth of solid linguistic methodology used in her deductions, as Gimbutas was beyond
reasonable doubt writing with a strong feminist slant; naturally calling into questionability her
suppositions that Europe was once a matriarchal, egalitarian, peaceful land which had come to be
ruined by the violent upheavals of the patriarchal, warlike Kurgans and their warhorses.

As the name suggests, the Kurgan Culture (also called the Yamna Culture or Pit Grave Culture) is a
culture whose buried and unearthed artifacts date from around the late Copper to Early Bronze Age,
found around the Caspian-Pontic Steppe. Evidence suggests the culture was largely nomadic with some
hillforts as the hypothetical Kurgans are said to have been 6. Interestingly, the area in the South of Ural
is a seemingly ideal point of diaspora of PIE cultures to both Europe and The Middle East (and Asia by
virtue), and its centralized location seems on paper to be the strongest candidate for the hailing point of
PIE language and culture. There is also evidence of climate change around Gimbutas proposed periods
of migration, adding some degree of strength to her claims.

However, the Kurgan Hypothesis quickly waxes questionable when archaeological evidence alone
shows evidence of walled cities and weapons of war in this supposedly peaceful Europe; we need look
no further than Classical Greece and Rome to know that a society which does not expect repeated
invasion and attack does not construct elaborate fortifications, and one can naturally assume that a
society that does not make war should not make tools therefor. Furthermore, many of her suppositions
specifically about the deforestation and geographical ruin that stemmed from Kurgan upheaval can
be explained by natural expansion/migration patterns and overall climate change (Bryant 38-9).

From a linguistic standpoint, Dolgopolsky (1990-93) argues that contact evidence between the IE and
6

Mallory, JP. Yamna Culture, Encyclopedia of Indo-European Culture. Fitzroy Dearborn, 1997

Semitic language families makes an origin point in the steppes of Ural highly unlikely. While the
Kurgan hypothesis posits that the Hittites (oldest of the PIE tongues) established their presence in
Anatolia around 2000 BC, Semitic contact with the tongue could suggest an earlier migratory period at
the very least if not a hailing point shifted further towards the Middle East. The Kurgan Hypothesis
also becomes weaker when one notes that the linguistic paleontology method used by Gimbutas is a
flawed concept; as it can be used to back any homeland theory with similar or equal fortitude; thus
making it ineffectual as a modus of validating linguistic evidence. Whatever the truth of the matter may
be, we shall abandon the matter as it pertains to PIE and return to Aryanist scholarship.

Aryanist Rebuttals from Within and Without:

In the face of these emerging Western Theories that oftentimes blatantly dismissed and/or
countermanded traditional liturgical wisdom; Aryanist Scholarship, then a curious assortment of
faithful Vedicists, Indian Nationalists, and fringe Westerners were quick to mount a number of
rebuttals. Many Westerners (perhaps with some degree of insight) pointed out the racial bias and
natural reluctance of the West to admit to the English Solider sharing blood with the Dark Bengalese
(Bryant 33). The native scholarship was, as one might imagine, resentful of what they perceived as
foreign corruption and denigration of their traditional beliefs, and perhaps also resentful of the reignited
tensions between North and South India (linguistically divided by Sanskrit and Dravidian offshoot
tongues). As such, they launched impassioned rebuttals at Western Revisionist scholarship. While
seemingly unable to add legitimacy or strength to their own belief that the Aryan folk had always been
native to the Indian Subcontinent, they did succeed in enumerating the variety of weaknesses that lay in
competing Western Theories springing up at the time.

One of the first rebuttals came from an Aghorechandra Chattopadhyaya, who pointed out the
interesting fact that the hypothesized PIE could give rise to such impressive civilization yet leave no
remnants of themselves, and the seemingly contradictory idea that they were nomadic tribesmen yet
had an original homeland (Bryant 58-9).

One might also point out that the Vedic texts do not refer to any sort of hailing point or invasion, and
that were it to exist, ancestral memory of this hailing point would not be so readily wiped out in the
period of divergence between Vedic and Avestan dialects. The Indigenous Aryanist crowd used
arguments like these to back up their hypothesis that the Indian peoples must have been always native
to India, but their own arguments are just as readily used against them, especially coupled with
compelling linguistic evidence. Regardless of their successes or lack thereof in answering the Proto
Indo-European question, their research enables us to shed some light on the birthplace of the Vedas and
perhaps to speak with more strength on the origins and divergence of the Indo-Iranian culture.

On the Proto Indo-Iranians

Having explained and detailed the discourse about the hypothesized Indo-European culture, we may
now at long last turn our attention to one of the cultures it is said to have spawned, the Indo-Iranians.
The earliest attestation of this culture is said to be the Sintashta Culture, located upon the border of
Eastern Europe and Central Asia. The culture is said to have existed around 2100-1800 BCE, used
chariots in warfare, known smelting of copper and bronze, and made fortified settlements 7. Those that
embrace the Kurgan Hypothesis would posit them to be migrators from Ural, those that back Aryanism
(as it pertains to India and not the Nordic Hypothesis we declined to detail earlier) would likely say
they came up from the Northern Punjab. However, there are a number of problems with both of these
7

Anthony, D.W. The Roles of Climate Change, Warfare, and Long-Distance Trade". In Hanks, B.; Linduff, K. Social
Complexity in Prehistoric Eurasia: Monuments, Metals, and Mobility. Cambridge University Press. pgs. 4773. 2009

theories, as we have already detailed in part and shall expound upon further and in more specificity
later in this paper.

The Proto Indo-Iranian tongue is unattested through any known inscriptions or corpora, but is
reconstructed from the earliest attested forms of its offshoot tongues, Vedic Sanskrit and Gathic
Avestan, and possibly from referents found in Hittite and Mittani records that we shall discuss further
later on (Mallory 38 39). The two tongues are said to have diverged around the period of the
Sintashta culture, with the Vedic speakers establishing themselves in India, the Avestan in Modern Day
Persia. Yet the two tongues are remarkably similar, and as a matter of fact it is from them that we get
the term Aryan, from their word Arya an Avestan Vedic self referential term meaning something
loosely akin to our community, of our people. Their holy texts have similar structures, speaking of
geography, history, creation, and war. Before making these comparisons, however, we should first
detail each of the respective texts from which we are making our deductions, and then comparing the
similarities/divergences of the two.

The Vedas

The word itself believed to be derived from PIE *vid (to know, Latin video I see, English wit), the
Vedas are the thesis of the Hindu Faith, four core texts detailing their rituals, way of life, history, and
geographical layout. Current scholarly belief (Mallory 39) places the date of their composition in
written form sometime around 1500 1200 BCE, though they in all likelihood existed in some oral
tradition centuries before that. They are divided into the Rigveda, Yajurveda, Samaveda, and
Atharvaveda8. They share some stanzas in common, but are recited for different rituals, and have slight
differences and redactions which enable us to roughly place them in order of composition. For the
8

The Vedas, available online as of this writing here: http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/index.htm

purposes of our analysis, we shall focus most upon the Rigveda (the eldest), and Atharvaveda (the
youngest).

The Avesta

Also known as the Zend-Avesta (from a version with Annotation/Commentary), the Avesta is the basic
text of the Zoroastrian faith, detailing the dictations of Ahura Mazda (the Great Lord) unto his prophet
Zoroaster (also known as Zarathustra). Similar to the Vedas, the Avesta is divided into an Older Avesta
(hymns believed to be composed by Zoroaster himself or possibly even older), and a Younger Avesta
consisting of later appends to the texts 9. Also like the Vedas, it is very likely that they existed in an oral
form far predating their point of first being written down by human hand. For our analysis, we
predominately will focus on the Gathas, which are believed to be the oldest collection of hymns, and
the Vendidad; due to their similarity in language and structure with the Rigveda and Atharvaveda
respectively.

A Brief Linguistic and Structural Comparison of the Veda and Avesta

The parallels between the Veda and Avesta have been remarked upon since the discovery of the Avesta
by Western Scholarship in the 18th Century10. One could devote an entire book to it and not begin to
cover the depths of the subject matter, but we shall attempt to give a general gist within a few short
paragraphs.

Thematically speaking, the concepts of dualism and fire-worship are at the center of early Vedic and
9

From a direct analysis of the Avesta, available online as of this writing here: http://www.avesta.org/yasna/yasna.htm
(Gathas), http://www.avesta.org/vendidad/vd_tc.htm (Vendidad)
10 From Ch. 1 of Sacred Books of the East: vol IV. The Zend-Avesta. pgs. xiv - xviii Edited by Max Mller, first published
by Oxford University Press 1880

Gathic text. The Rigveda opens with hymns to Agni (Sanskrit fire, cognate to Latin ignis, both
from PIE *hngnis fire, animate noun) the divine embodiment of fire, the Gathas with dedications to
Ahura Mazda, the god of the Sun and Fire. From the text itself, it can be deduced that both the Rigveda
and Yasna (whereof the Gathas are part) were meant to be recited by a head priest who would open a
session of worship. This obeisance to sacred flames is one seen in both Avestan and Vedic belief
systems11, and shows the import of fire in their rituals.

As divine and disconnected as the Rigveda and Gathas are, the younger counterparts, those being the
Atharvaveda and Vendidad, are centered upon the worldly and everyday affairs. While containing
spells and incantations, they both deal with social issues, law, family, kinship, and sacrifice. Like the
Vedas, the Avesta also make no clear reference to an ironclad caste system, yet both seemingly have a
priest/warrior/herder social stratification12, suggesting that the solidifications of caste are later
developments in both cultures. The most interesting point is the common term Arya to designate
community and kinfolk (Skt. aryaman, Av. airyaman, meaning Aryanhood, (person) of the Aryans).
The Vedas have an opposing term dasa to denote those that do not make the proper sacrifices 13,
which will become very important in later sections of the paper. For now, we shall directly move on to
cognate terms, which cast a very interesting light on the Vedas and Avesta 14:

11 This in all likelihood has roots in Proto Indo-European culture, when one considers the importance of deities like the
Roman Vesta, goddess of the hearth, and the import the Romans gave to her eternal flame.
12 From the Encyclopedia Iranica: Class System http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/class-system-i
13 Could possibly also be translated as ritual, as sacrifices were just a general part of both rituals. The figurative
implications are tragically, yet naturally lost to time.
14 Interesting things to note are Avestan common nouns being used as proper nouns in Sanskrit as well as proper nouns
commonly occuring in both Avestan and Vedic texts.

A Small Table of Cognate Terms:

Sanskrit

Avestan

Gloss

(Sanskrit,

Avestan

if

different)
aryaman

airyaman

Aryanhood, (person) of the

Aryans (community)

asura

ahura

Lord (Later Demonic shift in

Sanskrit, Deity in Avestan)

ahi

azi

Serpent,

Dragon,

Demon

Snake
deva, daeva

deva, daiva

Divine

Being

(Deity

in

Sanskrit, Later Demonic Shift in

Avestan)
Sarasvati

Haraxvati

Goddess of the River (Also a

river denoted both in the Avesta
and Vedas, but held to be
fictitious by scholarship)

Mitra

Mithra

God of Covenants (supposedly

developed

independently,

thought to be from a PII noun

*mitra

meaning

contract,

binder)
Vrtra

Verethra

Obstacle, Blocker (personified

in Sanskrit and Avestan, again in
different roles)

yajna

yasna

Worship, Sacrifice, Oblation

Given the close genetic relation between Vedic Sanskrit and Gathic Avestan, there are likely boundless
numbers of cognates which we could include in this table, which would be equally relevant to our
purposes. However, we have selected these ones due to their showing of common concepts for worship,
family, geographical locations, and divinity15. Where the terms are alike is understandable, but where
they shift is incredibly interesting. For example, consider the Sanskrit deva and Avestan daeva, in
addition to the Sanskrit asura and Avestan ahura. While in early texts all four terms are crosslinguistically synonymous with divine beings, they gradually begin to shift, such that by the later Vedic
and Avestan period Sanskrit asura and Avestan daeva both mean an exclusively malevolent or demonic
figure as opposed to a divine figure in general. Doubly interesting, Vedic Gods appear as Avestan
Demons and Avestan Demons Appear as Vedic Gods16. Given the likelihood of continued linguistic
contact, the fact that these terms inverted in such a manner is curious, and has implications that we
shall come to in following sections.

Momentarily abandoning direct comparison of common terms, the evidence of continued contact is
found in the geographical referents of the Veda and Avesta. The Vedas point to a group of rivers called
the Sapta Sindhu (with Hapta Hindu being an extant parallel term in the Avesta), describing what
are considered to be the good rivers, geographically located to the northwest from the point of
composition. Traditional scholarship takes this to mean the Sindh river and its many tributaries in the
province of Punjab (the Punjab of modern day Pakistan and not Northwest India). However, one may
also note that the rivers described in the Avesta are seemingly southeast of the point of composition.
15 Citation given here for readibility. Table constructed from Jackson, An Avesta Grammar... pgs. 25 45, also Surhone,
Lambert M., Tennoe, Mariam T., Henssonow, Susan F. "Proto-Indo-Iranian Religion" (2010)
16 The Vedic God Indra appears in the Vendidad as one of six primary demonic figures. One might also compare the
deified Aryman and Airyaman of the Vedas and Avesta respectively. Aryaman is initially referred to in the Rig Vedas as
an Asura, proving that the term archaically did not have demonic connotations

Given the linguistic and structural similarities which suggest contact at some point before or during
composition, we might shift the Vedic point of composition further north, perhaps even outside of the
Indian Subcontinent. Before we look at arguments for doing so, let us first take a look at the map
provided by one Shrikant Talageri (who supports the Out of India hypothesis), and his comparison of
Vedic and Avestan placement of the rivers:

Figure 2 1: Talageri's Map of Vedic and Avestan Rivers; from The Rig Veda: A Historical Analysis

There are, however, a number of issues with Talageri's map and the placement of the rivers. First, were
the Vedic rivers to be located in that area, Vedic Civilization should have lain in the heartland of the
Indus Valley Civilization (also known as the Harappan Civilization). From the texts, there is no
evidence of the Vedic tribes settling in the ruins of the civilization, constructing the cities, or even
having been aware of the civilization at all. One linguistically compelling piece of evidence against
such settlement is that rice was known to have grown and be cultivated by the Harappan civilization 17,
yet no reference of rice cultivation appears until later in the Vedic texts. As a matter of fact, the
Sanskrit word for rice, vrihi, does not appear anywhere in the Rigveda (Kazanas 13). Given the import
of rice in later Hindu rituals, it seems unlikely that it would have no mention in earlier texts were it to
be around where the early Vedas were composed.
Aside from rice, the terms for silver, rajata hiranyam (literally white gold) does not appear until post
Rigvedic texts, the word rajata only in the context of gleaming horses (Kazanas 13). Silver, like rice
is generally attested in the Harappan Civilization, so it is likewise suspicious at best that the Indic texts
make no mention of them up until a later point.

With regards to the location of the river Sindh, we know for a fact that it is not uncommon for settlers
of a new area to name geographical features of that area with familiar names (take New York as
example enough). Combined with absence of known and attested Indic Elements and Vedic
geographical descriptions being similar to Avestan ones, we have some degree of backing to suggest
that much if not all of the Rigveda was composed outside of the Indian Subcontinent. Given the similar
absence of any homeland being mentioned or invasion stories which are unlikely to be left out by a
civilization of conquerors, we can also perhaps suggest that the Aryan Invasion Theory popularized by
Kurganists wherein fairskinned Aryans rode in on chariots and drove the darkskinned Dasas
17 Kahn, Charles.World History: Societies of the Past. Portage & Main Press. 2005

(Dravidians) further south, becoming lords and masters of the continent and creating an oppressive
caste system in order to preserve their rule (Kazanas 1). Both Aryanists and Kurganists however seem
haunted by the notion that either one side or the other is right, Talageri even outright saying that either
the linguists or the hymns are correct (then suggesting that the linguists must turn to the hymns for
vindication)18.

However, as we deduced before, Invasion settlement theories can be oftentimes just as readily
explained by peaceful settlement and natural expansion of cultures. Given that there is no referent to
any outright invasion or conquering, a settlement of India by natural expansion seems likely and
seemingly blends much of both competing theories without overly offending the beliefs of either. It
seems unlikely that a people would record it in their eternal histories every time they moved down the
proverbial street. This however begs the question: who were the Dasas described in the Rigveda?
And why did the Vedic and Avestan cultures diverge in the manner they did? The answers could lie in
the major battle event the Vedas do describe, the Dasarajna ([Battle] of Ten Kings).

On The Dasarajna and Vedic-Avestan Rivalry

The Dasarajna, as it appears in the Vedas is said to be a battle between a King Sudas of the Tritsu tribe,
guided by the Sage Vashishta19, and 10 Kings/Tribes guided by the rival Sage Vishwamitra 20,
enumerated as follows:

1. Turvasa (led by a Purodas) 7.18.6

2. Bhrigu (Bhargava in other referents) 7.18.6
18 See Appendix III: Misinterpretations of Rigvedic History
19 The name possibly appears in Avestan as Asha Vahishta Truthful Vahishta (Sanskrit /s/ Avestan /h/).
20 The rivalry between the families of Vedic Composers is well documented in the Vedas, the one between Vashishta and
Vishwamitra seems to have been particularly fierce.

3. Druhyu 7.18.6
4. Paktha 7.18.7
5. Bhalana
6. Alina
7. Siva
8. Visanin
9. Matsya 7.18.6
10. Puru

A number of hymns in the 7 th Book of the Rigveda deal with this battle 21. To briefly summarize the
battle, Sudas is pitted against the horde of these 10 tribal kings, yet manages to defeat them by crossing
a river (Parusni) that the rival armies could not successfully ford; in addition the god Indra was said to
himself have stepped in and intervened on the behalf of Sudas. The tribal armies were drowned or
slaughtered by the men of Sudas, numbering 6, 666 in their casualties. As it tends to be with the victor
writing history, the tell of dead men on the side of King Sudas is not given. The Ten Kings are given
the labels of dasa or dasyu, meaning that they were ayajyavah, or those that have not performed the
proper sacrifices. As we discussed earlier, the exact connotation of sacrifice is fairly ambiguous here,
as the word also can mean proper worship or ritual.

To return to our earlier suppositions, this battle of ten kings has interesting implications when
considering the divergence of the Avestan and Vedic cultures. First, the battle is said to have taken
place on opposite sides of a river. Second, the Arya and Dasa distinction (sometimes hypothesized to be
Aryan Dravidian warring22) could likely be attributed to a priestly argument between Indo-Iranian
priesthood on proper oblation, with one group preserving the tradition that would eventually come to be
21 See RV Hymns 18, 19, and 33
22 See Encyclopedia Britannica, 11th Edition

the Avesta, the other group the one that would eventually become the Vedas. This is lent validity when
you note that Indra, the god said to have lent aid to Sudas in the Dasarajna (and in later Vedic Texts
eclipses Agni (Fire) as the Supreme God), is demonized in the Younger Avesta. These semantic shifts
coupled with the natural migration away from eachother that two conflicting tribes are likely to do
would serve to explain the divergence of the Vedas and Avesta and also the settlement of the Vedic
culture in the Indian Subcontinent. Later conflict with natives would perhaps serve to explain the
modern perception of the concept of dasyu, but at least the initial conflicts seem to be Aryan upon
Aryan.

Indo-Iranian Referents From Beyond The Linguistic Region

Adding compelling evidence to Indo-Iranian residence or contact in proximity with Anatolia/Syria is

the manual of Kikkuli the Mittani, a Mittani horse trainer in the employ of the Hittites around the
period of the New Kingdom, the 14th Century BCE (Mallory 36-37, Rawling 1). Kikkuli uses the
following clearly Indic numerals to designate laps a horse makes around a track: aika (*eka three),
tera (*tri three), panza (*panca five), satta (*sapta seven) and na (*nava nine). Other Hurrian
(the language of the Mittani) texts have Indic words like marya (*marya warrior) or babru (*babhru
brown). A Mittani king in a treaty swears by the deities Indra, Mitra, and Varuna (Mallory 36-7). This
suggests contact with the Indo-Iranians in a region given in the following map:

Figure 3-1: A Map of the Mittani and their adjacent neighbors, along with a reckoning of where the
Proto Indo-Iranians (Aryans here) might have dwelt. From In Search of the Indo-Europeans.

Further evidence to the idea of Indo-Iranian contact towards the region of Anatolia is found in the
Hittite Sins of Maduwatta dating to the 15th Century BCE, where the eponymous Hittite Underking
Maduwatta is said to have been pursued by an Attariiya and nearly killed were it not for the
intervention of another King. Attariiya is said to be a Hittite rendition of the Greek (Atreus),
but also has a similar sound to the name of a Vedic Composer, Atri, said to be a famous sage and have a
rather large and prominent family, as we see in the following subsection:

"On Attariiya and his may be Origins":

From what is known about Hittite Orthography, we can parse the name and attempt a hypothetical (and

hopefully somewhat phonologically sound) realization.

First off, Hittite orthography seemingly used the double consonant to note voiceless sounds, rather than
an actual double consonant in pronunciation. Furthermore, Hittite orthography did not readily allow for
consonant clusters and often appended vowels to work around this, occasionally stripping consonant
clusters out entirely. Conversely, vowels were often represented by markings or left out, with needless
vowels put in.

With these facts in mind, we could analyze the Hittite data thus:

Attariiya
Atariiya

(Removal of Double Consonants)

Atriiya

(Removal of 'a' Epenthesis)

/atrisija/

(Hypothetical Realization)

The above realization has a parallel to a Sanskrit compound - (Atri-Risiya)23, meaning

"of/from the Sage Atri" (Atri PN, Risiya MASC.SG.GEN "of/from the sage"). This would be poetically
realized as "Son of Atri". Applying Hittite the earlier Hittite reductions in reverse, we could also
account

for

the

/atririsija/

(Sanskrit Realization)

/atrisija/

(Hittite Realization)?

atrisiya

(Removal of Orthographic Violation)

changes

in

Orthography:

23 As mentioned earlier, this would chronologically fit, as the text is believed to date to the later parts of the 15 th Century
BCE. This would be around when the Vedas were believed to be composed, more specifically the Rigveda wherein the
scholar Atri is first given name.

atarisiya

(Second Removal of Orthographic Violation)

attarisiya

(First doubling of Consonants, allows for alternate Attariya)

attarissiya

(Second doubling of Consonants)

Attariiya

(Final Hittite Orthographic Form)

From the analysis above, the idea of the Attarsiya of the Hittite text being someone affiliated with the
family of the scholar Atri seems plausible 24. Given the references to places like Hinduwa and the river
Siyanta in the text (Sins of Maduwatta), the idea of Indic peoples living far beyond where they are
thought to have becomes a possibility that certainly should be raised and investigated further.

Concluding Remarks:

The subject matter herein is likely worthy of a number of far lengthier dissertations, particularly the
links of Indo-Iranian that might connect to the Anatolian region. Nonetheless, we have succeeded in
pointing out the weaknesses in a number of theories by showing what they fail to explain, and also in
raising a question from the facts that arose from explaining said weakenesses. Sadly, we have not yet
managed to answer the question of where exactly the birthplace of the Vedas lay with certainty, but we
have pointed out a clear possibility with plenty of room for further research and investigation.

24 Assuming this Sanskrit Compound, either should be Hellenized as (Atreus). Given the uncertain etymology of the
Hellenic name, it is even possible that the Atreus of Homer and his house may have some ties to Indic Myth; though
investigation within this paper itself unfortunately goes beyond our purposes s

Sources:
Historical Texts: The Sins of Maduwatta, The Avesta, The Vedas, Kikkuli's Horse Trainers Manual
Bryant, Edwin. The Quest for the Origins of Vedic Culture: The Indo-Aryan Migration Debate. Oxford
University Press 2001
Trautmann, Thomas. The Aryan Debate. Oxford University Press 2005
Mallory, JP. In Search of the Indo-Europeans 1997
Mallory, JP. Yamna Culture, Encyclopedia of Indo-European Culture. Fitzroy Dearborn, 1997
The Eleventh Edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica
Kahn, Charles.World History: Societies of the Past. Portage & Main Press. 2005
Sturtevant, Edgar H. A Comparative Grammar of the Hittite Language. New Haven and London, Yale
University Press. 1951.
Meier-Brgger, Michael. Indo European Linguistics. Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co. , KG, Berlin.
2003
Kazanas, N. A New Date for the Rig Veda. Omelos Meliton, 2001
Talageri, Shrikant G. The Rig Veda: A Historical Analysis. Date of Publishing Missing, Online Version
(http://www.tri-murti.com/ancientindia/rigHistory/indexRigHist.htm)
Jackson, Abraham Valentine Williams. An Avesta Grammar in Comparison with Sanskrit and the
Avestan Alphabet and its Transcription. W. Kohlhammer, Stuttgart. 1892
Witzel, Michael. The Home of the Aryans. Harvard University Press.
(http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~witzel/AryanHome.pdf)
Macdonnel & Keith. Vedic Index of Names and Subjects. 1958 (Reprint)
Burrow, T. The Sanskrit Language. Motilal Banarsidass Publ. 2001
Surhone, Lambert M., Tennoe, Mariam T., Henssonow, Susan F. "Proto-Indo-Iranian Religion" (2010)
From the Encyclopedia Iranica: Class System http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/class-system-i
Parpola, Asko. "Study of the Indus script", Transactions of the 50th International Conference of Eastern
Studies, Tokyo: The Th Gakkai, pp. 2866. 2005
Hawkins, J. D. The Arzawa Letters in Recent Perspective, British Museum Studies in Ancient Egypt
and Sudan. 14, pp. 73-83 (2009)
Anthony, D.W. The Horse, The Wheel, and Language: How Bronze Age Riders from The Uralic
Steppes Shaped the World. 2007
Fortson, Benjamin. Indo-European Language and Culture: An Introduction. 2004