The Lost Vedic River Sarasvati

[skganji]

Looks like an Interesting article on the language of IVC. Need to go through it thoroughly to see it has some loopholes in it.

The Demise of the Dravidian, Vedic and Paramunda IndusHypotheses: Why these Hypotheses are no longer tenable


Read pages 4 to 18 which contain a detailed discussion of the term ‘Aryan’.

This paper argues against the Dravidian, Vedic and Paramunda Indus theories, and shows why Dravidian languages, Sanskrit or Paramunda languages could not have been candidates for the Indus Valley Civilization which flourished from 2600 BC to 1900 BC in the North-West of India and Pakistan. Supporters of these three hypotheses are welcome to provide a systematic refutation of all the points raised in this paper. This paper adopts a multi-disciplinary approach, drawing conclusions from many different fields of science. Quotes of several mainstream scholars of repute are presented in support of the conclusions arrived at in this paper. An alternative hypothesis of the identity of the Harappans is also presented towards the end of the paper.

...

(a) We proposed that the Harappans spoke many languages belonging to many language groups.
(b) We suggested that these languages included (the emphasis is on the word “included” here) several languages which much later came to be known as the Prakrit family of languages.

...

This theory is very similar to many other existing theories, although the methods we used to reach our conclusions were quite different. Some of these theories are listed below, and these are essentially the same as our proposals, despite minor differences:

(a) ‘Early form of Prakrit’, by Madhav Deshpande (Prof. of South Asian literature and linguistics, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan). This proposal was presented in ‘The Aryan debate’ edited by Thomas R. Trautmann, Oxford University Press 2005.
(b) ‘Mleccha Prakrit hypothesis’ by S. Kalyanaraman, Independent scholar
(c) Indo-Iranian hypothesis by Ahmad Hassan Dani, one of Pakistan’s leading scholars on www.harappa.com. Although he does not use the term Prakrit, the two hypotheses are conceptually similar as the IVC originated in Baluchistan (Baluchistan is very close to Iran). Both hypotheses naturally imply that these languages were pre-Sanskritic.
(d) Malati J.Shengde’s Elamite hypothesis
(e) Masica’s language ‘X’, and similar other studies carried out in various points in time, and a partial list of such studies was compiled in ‘The SARVA (South Asia Residual Vocabulary Assemblage) Project’ by F. C. Southworth,
University of Pennsylvania (Emeritus) in the year 2005.
(f) We have taken the views of several other leading scholars such as Franklin Southworth, M B Emeneau and Alfred C Woolner that would imply that this hypothesis is correct. We have reproduced quotes in this paper.
(g) This theory is very similar to a proposal made by Witzel himself in his paper “Substrate Languages in Old Indo-Aryan (Rigvedic, Middle and Late Vedic).”

As Witzel says in this paper, apparently ruling out the Paramunda Indus theory and providing an indirect support to the hypothesis laid out in this paper, (this quote is from his paper, “Substrate Languages in Old Indo-Aryan (Rigvedic, Middle and Late Vedic).”

“However, there are indications that another language was prevalent in Sindh before the immigration of the Dravida. The trade of the Indus civilization with Sumeria and later Mesopotamia has left us a number of words that are not Dravidian. It is perhaps best to call this language “Meluhhan” after the name the Sumerians gave to the country, Meluhha. Its language was also sufficiently different from Elamite or Sumerian to require
a ‘translator from Meluhha’ (Possehl 1996a: no. 2), whose name is Suilisu (Parpola 1994: 132). In fact, “the language of Marhasi [Bampur area, just west of Iranian Baluchistan] is different from that of the Simaskians [Tepe Yahya in southern Central Iran], and only very partially Elamite-related.” (Vallat 1985: 52). This indicates that there was a language boundary, somewhere to the west of the present Iran-Pakistan border, probably in a southwards prolongation of the Iran-Afghanistan border. Possehl identifies the area of Meluhha (1996, 1997) as having a center in the hills and mountains of Baluchistan, closer to the population center of the early Indus civilization, which allows for a hypothetical identification of the Marhasi language with that of Meluhha and makes a thorough investigation of the data of RV 8 even more important. There are men with Meluhha as a personal name, thus apparently ‘the Meluhhan’; several persons, among them Urkal and Urdlama, are called the son of Meluhha. There also is a village of Meluhha, from where a person called Nin-ana comes. The products of Meluhha include gisabbameluhh (abba wood, a thorn tree), mesu wood (’of the plains’), ships of Meluhhan style (magilum boat), (Possehl 1996a). In total, there are some 40 “Indian” words transmitted to ancient Mesopotamia, some of which may have been coined by Dilmun (Bahrain) traders.”

Read on...

http://www.scribd.com/doc/136268397/...da-Indus-myths

[skganji]

Removing these comments as they serve no important purpose in understanding ancient India.

[satchitananda]

A nice read on the bygone times of IVH..

[skganji]

We have noticed some people especially who have no idea about Prakrit and Sanskrit languages are floating comments that Sanskrit came from Prakrit. To remove such misleading theories, I am providing evidence from the works of ancient Indian grammarians like Vararuchi, Hemachandra who clearly said that Prakrit came from Sanskrit.

Here is what ancient grammarians like Vararuchi and Hemachandra had said about Prakrit language.


By the term Prakrit, the Indian grammarians and rhetoricians comprehend a multitude of literary languages as the common characteristic whereof they consider Sanskrit their origin. Therefore, they generally derive the word Prakrta from prakrti, “element”, “basis” and according to them this basis is Sanskrit. So says Hemachandra 1, 1, Prakrtih samskritam | tatra-bhavam tatah agatam va prakritim | . “It has its origin in Sanskrit. Prakrit is that which springs , or comes , from Sanskrit”.

Views of the Indian Grammarians on the relation of the Prakrits to Sanskrit, and on the other elements in their composition.
Vararuchi, the oldest extant grammarian who treats of the Prakrit forms of speech, and his commentator Bhamaha ( in his Manorama), distinctly assert their derivation, mediate or immediate , from Sanskrit. The former describes in his “Prakrita-prakasa” four dialects of this decription . viz : 1st, Maharasthri, or Prakrit generally so called ; 2nd Paisachi, 3rdly , Magadhi; and 4thly Sauraseni. After having in the first nine chapters laid down the rules for formation of Prakrit, properly so called, from Sanskrit, he proceeds to the others ; and at the commencement of Chapter X. he lays down that “the root of the Paischai is the Sauraseni”
Paisachi | Prakrtih Sauraseni | on which the commentator Bhamaha remakrs that Paisachi is the language of the Pisachas. The Magadhi also is declared by Vararuchi in Chapter XI, “to be derived from the same Sauraseni” . Magadhi | Prakritih Sauraseni |. The Sauraseni dialect itself is spoken of at the commencement of Chapter XII, as derived immediately from the Sanskrit.
Sauraseni | Prakrtih Samskritam |. At the end of chapter on Sauraseni, is stated that “in other points” , “it is like the Maharashtri dialect” ( Sesham Maharastrivat ). From this and from some other quotations which we will found below, it appears that ancient Maharashtri , and the dialect called by the way of eminence “the prakrit” are the same. In another work called “Shabdasha Chandrika” by Lakshimdhara, it is stated that the “Prakrit dialect had its origin in Maharashtra”. Prakritam Maharashtrodbhavam. The Sauraseni is said to be derived from the Sanskrit, or principal Prakrit, as the greater part of Vararuchi’s work is devoted to showing how it is formed by modifications of Sanskrit.