(Indian Journal of History and Culture, Chennai,
Autumn 2015)
Abstract:
The discipline of Iranian
Studies is proceeding in ignorance about the age and place of the founding
character of the civilization it studies, Zarathuštra
Spitāma. However, Vedic literature may have decisive information about it.
In a maximalist interpretation, it might even locate Zarathuštra in the direct vicinity of a precise historical event. At
any rate, it offers surprising information about the precise relation between
him and the religious reforms with which he is associated. It is Shrikant
Talageri (building on S.K. Hodiwala) who developed the link between Zarathuštra and Vedic history, and we
will be able to add a few insights confirming his hypothesis and exploring its
implications.
Vedic prehistory
The Vedas were not
conceived as a proto-historical narrative. They are a collection of ten
books (Maṇḍala, “circle”) of hymns (Sūkta
< Su-vakta “well said”) to the
gods, made up of metric verses (Mantra,
“mental instrument”). They only provide glimpses of real history collaterally.
Contrary to a
common Hindu belief that Ṛg-Veda was
God-given and outside history, it situates itself inside history. It uses a
language situated on a specific place in the genealogical tree of the evolving
Indo-European language family, it refers to a specific region with its typical
fauna and flora, rivers and mountains, tribes, wars, marriages, individuals
with ancestors and descendants. “In fact most Indologists regard Sudās, the hero of the battle of the ten
kings celebrated in the Ṛgveda, as a historical figure.” (Bhargava 1998:i) The
tendency among some Hindus to take scriptural data literally is ridiculed by
scholars, but the attitude of ignoring these data or dismissing them as just
fantasy, is equally untenable.
The historical
data of the Vedic period itself allow for a relative chronology within the Ṛg-Veda, as discovered by India’s
path-breaking historian Shrikant Talageri. The internal logic of the Vedic
books, principally the genealogical data, sometimes details of the linguistic
development, sometimes glimpses of the underlying Sitz im Leben, reveal a sequence (Talageri 2000:35-93, building on
Oldenberg 1894). The oldest period consists of Book 6, then book 3, then (though
partly overlapping) book 7. This is
followed by book 4, then book 2, the middle period. The late period
starts with book 5, the youngest of the “Family Books”, each one written by a
family of seers. Book 8, with a broader and more westerly horizon,
provisionally completes the series. A collection of separate hymns covering the
period of books 4-2-5-8 is book 1. (Here I am tempted to break ranks with
Talageri, as there are indications that book 1 reaches even farther back,
notably that Dīrghatamas, seer of RV
1:140-164, belongs to the very first generation of Vedic poets, contemporaneous
with Bharadvāja, main seer of book 6;
but also counter-indications; while Agastya,
seer of RV 1:165-191, is contemporaneous with Vasiṣṭha, seer of book 7.)
These 8 formed a first corpus of hymns.
A collection of
hymns related to the psychedelic brew Soma forms book 9, and a distinctly
younger collection of hymns constitutes book 10. This latter is part of a
younger culture shared with the Yajur-
and Atharva-Veda (the Sāma-Veda mostly consists of hymns of
the Ṛg-Veda put to music). The Yajur-Veda reaches down to the age of
the dynasty’s fraternal war related in the Mahābhārata,
(“great [epic] of the Bhārata clan”),
and the youngest layer of the Ṛg-Veda
likewise, mentioning king Śantanu,
the great-grandfather of the war’s protagonists, in hymn 10:98. It was their
grandfather (or Śantanu’s stepson) Kṛṣṇa Dvaipayana a.k.a. Veda-Vyāsa who closed the Vedic corpus
by giving it its definitive structure. The last king mentioned in the Vedic
corpus is Vyāsa’s biological son Dhṛtarāṣṭra, father of the Kaurava participants in the battle.
The Ṛg-Veda contains a few references to a
pre-Vedic period. People don’t know the future, so even the Vedic seers have
little to say about later centuries, but they do discuss the past. Contrary to
a revealed scripture existing from all eternity, the Ṛg-Veda refers to its own prehistory.
Some forty times,
it mentions the patriarch Manu: as an ancestor, as
the Father of Mankind, and implicitly as a law-giver, once even explicitly (RV
1:128:1-2: “by Manu’s law”). The extant text of his Mānavadharmaśāstra hardly predates the Christian age, but the idea
of a normative system established anciently by Manu, though its details must
have evolved, was already present in the Veda.
It also frequently
mentions the matriarch Ilā,
ancestress of a string of related tribes including the tribe whose poets
composed the Vedic hymns as well as the tribe that was to compose the Iranian
scripture Avestā. Several times it
mentions her son Purūravas,
(addressee, with nymph Ūrvaśī, of
hymn 10:45), and two later ancestors, Nahuṣa,
who is said to have made the crucial move to the Sarasvatī basin where the Vedic seers were to live, and his son Yayāti. It mentions king Bharata who apparently presided over the
start of the Vedic corpus, in RV 6:16:4 (already as a memory: “Bharata of old”) and 7:8:4. Two of his
sons are named as having composed the early hymn RV 3:23 and are named in the
hymn itself.
It should be clear
that the Vedic seers had a sense of history. It shone through even when they
weren’t doing history, just praising the gods.
Historicity of the Purāṇas
The stray Vedic
references to historical persons broadly concur with the more detailed account
given in the Purāṇas. This very large
corpus, committed to writing mostly in the 1st millennium CE, is a
notorious mixture of myths, embellished history and sometimes a really
historical core. The royal genealogies, in particular, were a genre subject to careful
memorization, and this among many peoples, not just the ancient Indians. They may
very well have that historical core. The Puranic tradition, even if not in written
form, existed already “in the Upaniṣadic period if not earlier”
(Siddhantashastree 1977:8) and was mentioned in the Mahābhārata (18.6.97, “eighteen Purāṇas”)
and in the Chāndogya Upaniṣad (7:1:2-4).
A researcher into
the degree of historicity of the Purāṇas
argues: “Fortunately the Puranic genealogies from the time of the founder of
Buddhism onward can be tested by the evidence supplied by the Buddhist and Jain
literature, dramas and inscriptions. (…) the mistakes regarding the names, the
order of succession and the regnal years of kings are certainly not many.”
(Bhargava 1998:2-3) Indeed, those mistakes (or at least differences, the
mistake may equally be in the Buddhist etc. lists) indicate that we are dealing
with independent sources not copying from one another.
“If the Puranic
genealogies from the time of the Buddha onward are almost faultless, the
presumption naturally is that the earlier genealogies too are not mere figments
of the imagination. (…) In the first place a large number of these names occur
in the Vedic literature which is quite independent of the Purāṇas. Secondly, even those names which do not occur in the Vedic
literature are so archaic that they could not have been coined by the authors
of the present Purāṇas in whose time
the style of names had completely changed.” (Bhargava 1998:3-4)
Summarizing one of
his further arguments, we may mention that the division of the Ṛg-Veda in earlier books and a later 10th
book is mirrored in the Puranic order of early kings named in the early books
and their descendants named in the 10th book or later Vedic
literature. Similarly, the Hindu tradition that the four Vedic hymn collections
were completed just before the Bhārata
war, is confirmed by the non-mention in the Vedas of any king who, according to
the Puranic genealogical lists, is younger the Dhṛtarāṣtra, father of the Kaurava
party in the war. Similarly, the Great Upanishads never mention any king whom
the lists date as post-Buddha. Finally:
“There are numerous synchronisms recorded in the Vedic, Puranic and epic
literatures which are in consonance with the arrangement of names in the
dynastic lists of the Puranas. These facts clearly establish the correctness of
the arrangement of names in the Puranic genealogies.” (Bhargava 1998:5)
To be sure, the larger Puranic literature pretending to be historical shows
some expected flaws typical of this proto-historical genre. One, for instance,
is anachronism, particularly the projection of concerns typical of the editors’
own society onto the ancient past. Thus, the conflict between the Vedic seers Viśvāmitra and Vasiṣṭha is famously spun in terms of caste rivalry. In classical
Hindu society, this was an uppermost concern, but in the Vedic original (RV ),
this was not the issue at all and plays no role in the seers’ conflict, which
had another cause.
Another distortion, or fanciful invention, is the story of matriarch Ilā’s sex-change: she is said to have
been Manu’s son Sudyumna who found himself transformed into a woman. A scholar
speculates that Sudyumna is the same
person as Ilā’s son Purūravas: “Manu desired that his first child should be a son, whereas his wife
desired a daughter. Their first child was a girl. (…) Iḻā gave birth to a boy named Sudyumna
(…) He could not ascend to the throne because of being [Manu]’s daughter’s son.
Sudyumna, therefore, was appointed to
rule Pratiṣṭhānapura (…) This has
been mentioned in the form of allegory, which runs thus: Iḻā, the first child of Manu, herself was transformed into a man,
and then again into a woman (...) But when we carefully consider all the
different descriptions in different Purāṇas
and epics, we can easily find the historical fact.” (Siddhantashastree 1978:35)
In the original Vedic story, however, she plays a prominent role as deified
ancestress but no reference whatsoever is made to any sex-change intrigue.
These distortions are common fare in any appropriation of ancient
history by later writers, and only corroborate that we are dealing with authors
really trying to do history, though it was an embellished and ideologically
streamlined history. So, we have to treat would-be historical information from
the Purāṇas with care; but with that
caveat, we dare provisionally to draw upon at least the Puranic genealogies.
These are the hard core of their pretended narrative of the past.
Early history in the Purāṇas
The Puranic account that defines the relation between the Vedic people
and the proto-Iranians starts with Manu, who established
his kingdom in the North-Indian town of Ayodhyā
after having survived the Flood. His direct succession went through his eldest
son Ikṣvāku, founder of the Solar
Dynasty, who remained in Ayodhyā
where his descendant Rāma was to
rule. Most Kṣatriyas in the Gaṅgā plain, including Rāma, the Buddha and the Gupta
kings, claimed to belong to this Solar lineage.
One of Manu's
other heirs was his first-born, daughter Iḷā,
whose son Purūravas (see RV 10:95:18) started the Lunar Dynasty.
It was originally based in Pratiṣṭhānapura
near Prayāga (Siddhantashastree
1978:14). Their descendant Nahuṣa
moved westwards to the Sarasvatī
basin (alluded to in RV 7:95:2). His son Yayāti
had five sons, who became the patriarchs of the "five peoples" (RV
6:51:11), the ethnic horizon of the Vedas: Pūru,
Anu, Druhyu, Turvaśa and Yadu. According to a later myth, Pūru or Puru was the youngest but was rewarded with the privileges of primogeniture
because of having lent his youth to his father who had become impotent. At any
rate, his tribe occupied the centre when the five tribes were given their
historical locations, the centre being the Sarasvatī
basin. Anu’s tribe occupied the area
north of it, Kaśmīr.
Within
Pūru's tribe, the Pauravas, then, king Bharata started the Bhārata clan, the backbone around which the Vedic tradition was to
grow. According to later (and sometimes trustworthy) tradition, he was the
adoptive father of the first-generation Vedic seer, Bharadvāja, grandson of Aṅgiras,
the principal author of the oldest RV Book. This Bharadvāja was born from the same mother as another prominent
first-generation seer, Dīrghatamas
(Nagar 2012:93, referring to Matsya Purāṇa
49:25 and 49:30). As a grown man Bharadvāja
became court-priest to king Divodāsa
(RV 6:16:5), an ancestor to Vasiṣṭha’s
patron Sudās (“Sudās’s father Divodāsa”,
RV 7:19:25), whom we shall get to know as the hero of the principal battle with
the proto-Iranians.
Near
the time of the very first Vedic hymns, according to the Purāṇas, a war erupted
between the Druhyu tribe in Panjab
and its eastern neighbours, mainly the Pauravas
in Haryāṇā and the Ānavas in Kaśmīr, ending in the westward expulsion
of most Druhyus (Pargiter 1962:298,
Bhargava 1971:99, Pusalker 1996:283, Talageri 2000:260 with reference to the Purāṇas: Vāyu 99:11-12, Matsya
48:9 etc.; and Talageri 2008:247). Their place in West-Panjab was taken by the Ānavas.
Talageri
(2008:218, 246-250) has shown that there is plenty of evidence in the Vedic
stories for an Indian origin and for several Vedic-age emigrations from India.
Even the earliest emigration, of the Druhyu
tribe defeated by the proto-Iranian Ānavas
and the Vedic Pauravas with the help
of the Solar king (who had a Paurava mother) Māndhātṛ, only happened shortly before the Vedic narrative starts
and is still remembered in a few hymns (1:107:8, 6:46:8, 7:18, 8:10:5, 10:134).
Even the later Purāṇas report that
the Druhyus went west (from Panjab)
and set up kingdoms there. Thus, Gandhāra
in Afghanistan is said to be named after one of the Druhyu chieftains. (Pargiter 1962:262)
So, if
any of this is correct, the emigration of IE-speaking populations from their
Indian Homeland becomes less mysterious. This is better than any scholar of IE
had expected: the IE dispersal is borderline-historical. It does not have to be
speculatively reconstructed from scratch or from mute archaeological finds, but
is repeatedly hinted at in the texts. The later emigration of the Iranians and
the West-Asian Indo-Aryans is more fully described and leaves its traces also
in features such as their naming systems
and the verse forms as well as the evolving vocabulary, as shown by Talageri
(2010:3-80).
At any
rate, the stage is now set for the Ānava-Paurava
confrontation.
Ārya
and Dāsa
The Ṛg-Veda always refers to the Pauravas, whether friends or enemies (traitors),
as Ārya. They never do so for non- Pauravas, not even when praising them
as meritorious allies. This term, often analyzed for ultimate or somehow
profound meanings, has the effective meaning of “compatriot”, “fellow citizen”,
“us” (as against “them”), in Vedic as well as in Iranian and Anatolian (Mallory
& Adams 2006:266, Talageri 2000:154-160, Elst 2013). As Fortson (2004:187) writes: the term was a
“self-designation of the Vedic Indic people”, equally used in self-reference by
the Iranians. This means that the Vedic people considered themselves Ārya and the Iranians as an-Ārya, while the Iranians considered
themselves Ārya (hence the name of
their later country: Iran is an
evolute of Airiiānām Xšathra, “domain
of the Aryans”) and the Vedic or Paurava
tribe as an-Ārya.,
Dāsa
originally had a neutral meaning, “man”, like when an army officer speaks of
his soldiers as “my men”. It was still used in that sense in some Iranian
dialects and became the name of an Iranian tribe known to the Greeks as Dahai (Indo-European/Sanskrit s becomes Iranian h, cfr. Sindhū becoming Hindū). It already acquired a pejorative
meaning, existing alongside the neutral one, in the references to enemies in
the earliest layer of the Ṛg-Veda.
Thus, “subdue the tribes of Dāsas to
the Ārya” (RV 6:25:2). There was a
victory by the Vedic king Divodāsa
over “the Dāsa Śambara” (RV 6:26:5,
also mentioned as his defeated foe in 6:43:1, 6:47:21 and later in 9:61:2), all while dāsa
was an element of the winner’s name, “divine fellow”.
The Battle of the Ten Kings
In the oldest
layer of the Ṛg-Veda, the Ānavas are still treated as friends.
Thus, in hymn 6:27, Indra’s help is
invoked for Abhyāvartin Cāyamāna, who
has an Iranian patronymic and is a descendent of Pṛthu, ancestor of the Iranian Parthians. But this friendship
doesn’t last. In West (present-day Pakistani) Panjab, a confrontation developed
between Vedic king Sudās and a
confederacy of ultimately ten tribes, mostly Iranian.
Possibly after a
rivalry (about which the facts are not given) with Sudās’s court priest Viśvāmitra,
Vasiṣṭha becomes the court priest
himself. Viśvāmitra is the main
composer of Ṛg-Veda’s Book 3
including the single most famous Vedic verse, the Gāyatrī mantra (RV 3:62:10, a prayer to the rising sun). The major
historical event treated in his hymn collection is his aid as court priest to Sudās in the victory over the Kīkaṭas in the east (RV 3:53). In spite
of this success, he seems to have been replaced as royal priest by Vasiṣṭha, who stars as the king’s
decisive helper in the subsequent “Battle of the Ten Kings” (Dāśarājña Yuddha). This battle is the
topic of his hymns RV 7:18/33/83 and a number of allusions elsewhere.
The coalition
comes from the west, from the basin of the Asiknī
river, the present-day Chenab, to attack Sudās
on the riverside of the Paruṣṇī, the
present-day Ravi (7:18:8-9). The word
“attack” does not really imply that the coalition was the aggressor, though the
Vedic people saw it that way. It may just as well have been a tactical
counteroffensive within a war in which Sudās
himself was the main aggressor. Our knowledge of this conflict is just too
sketchy and moreover based on a partisan source. At any rate, as Talageri (2000:420-424,
2008:350-369) has forcefully argued, this was not a battle between good and
evil, as many Hindus assume, just a regular war for conquest. Both parties
tried to justify their own stand ideologically, but these Hindus have to base
their opinion on the only version still extant, that of Sudās’s camp through his court priest Vasiṣṭha.
The tactical moves
mainly pertain to the military use of the river: it seems the coalition
surrounded Sudās’s army, that it
escaped by fording the river (“Indra
made the river shallow and easy for Sudās
to traverse”, RV 7:18:5, “fordable Paruṣṇī”,
RV 7:18:8), that the coalition fell into disarray while trying to cross the
river, that some soldiers drowned while others were overtaken in hot pursuit. Their
leader Kavaṣa drowns, along with Druhyu (RV 7:18:12). Kavi “dies” (RV 7:18:8), Bheda first escapes but later gets
killed (RV 7:18:18-19), and one Devata
is also killed (RV 7:18:20). Both the legitimate enemy and Sudās’s tribesmen siding with the enemy were defeated: “Ye smote
and slew his Dāsa and his Ārya enemies and helped Sudās with favour, Indra-Varuṇa.” (RV 7:83:1)
At any rate, the
outcome of the battle is a clear victory, for the enemies are killed, dispersed
or thrown back to the west, to the Asiknī basin: “Agni chased these Dasyus in
the east and turned the godless westward” (RV 7:6:3). They leave their
possessions behind and (part of) their land is occupied to become part of the Paurava domain.
Who were the enemies?
The Vedic text
gives quite a bit of detail about the enemy coalition. The ethnic identity of
the enemies, often treated as a mystery (if not filled in as “obviously the
black aboriginals”), is in fact crystal-clear.
Sudās, the Tṛtsu, defeats the Pauravas’ western neighbor among the
five tribes, the Ānavas: “The goods
of Anu’s son he gave to Tṛtsu.” (RV 7:18:13) In the next verse,
the Ānavas are mentioned again,
together with what remained of the Druhyu
tribe, as having been “put to sleep”. The enemies include Kavi and Kavaṣa, the
enemy tribes Pṛśu, Pṛthu, Paktha, Bhalana (RV
7:18:7) are collectively known as Dāsa,
some of them as Paṇi (lambasted
already in 7:6:3), and their priests as Dasyu.
Practically all the names of enemy tribes or enemy leaders are Iranian or
pertain to tribes known from Greco-Roman sources as Iranian: Kavi, the name of the Iranian dynasty
still featuring in Zarathuštra’s Gāthās (e.g. Gāthā 51:16, Insler 1975:107); Kavaśa/Kaoša;
Dāsa/Dahae; Dasyu/Danghyu; Paṇi/Parnoi;
Ānava/Anaoi; Parśu/Persoi; Pṛthu/Parthoi;
Paktha/Paštu; Bhalāna/Baluc/Bolān.
A few are not, at
least at first sight, and it is after all a heterogeneous coalition. But names
like Bheda, while not conspicuously
Iranian, are not recognizably Dravidian or Munda either, and none of these
names is.
On the same
pattern, we later get the theological contrast between Asura and Ahura. The
first seers including Vasiṣṭha still
use the word in a positive sense, as “lord” or “powerful one”: one of his hymns
for Agni starts out as “praise of the
Asura” (RV 7:6:1), and he calls Agni again “the Asura” (RV 7:30:3), while Indra
provides asurya, “lordliness”, “manliness”
(RV 7:21:7). Yet, he also call
Agni the “Asura-slayer” (RV
7:13.1): this could be neutral, meaning “even mightier than the mighty ones”,
but it could also signal the shift from positive to negative.
In the later hymns
and in Hindu literature ever since, Asura
has served as the usual term for “agent of evil”, “demon”, but still with a
dignified status and an unmistakable dexterity, in distinction from the lowly Rākṣasās. In Buddhism too, Asuras are associated with powerful
quasi-human emotions, especially jealousy of the gods, but do not inhabit one
of the hells where the Hungry Ghosts and other lowly creatures dwell (Krishna
2014:60-61). Conversely, in the Iranian tradition they retain their divine
status and it is the Deva/Daēvas who
get demonized.
Though clear
enough, Iranologists generally keep labouring under the notion that early
Avestan history is a mystery. By contrast, Parsi scholars candidly link the
Battle of the Ten Kings (and the subsequent Vārṣāgira
Battle, cfr. infra) to early Avestan history (Hodiwala 1913:12-16, quoted by
Talageri:2000:216-217). Others create a confused picture, theorizing e.g. that
the Vedic tribe consisted of Aryan invaders penetrating India eastwards, and
that the Dāsas were either
aboriginals or earlier invaders resisting the western newcomers.
Thus, Dāsas and Dasyus were “people and cultures either indigenous to South Asia or
already in South Asia – from wherever or whenever they may have come – when the
carriers of Rgvedic culture and religion moved into and through the northwest
of the subcontinent” (Jamison & Brereton 2014:56). The thrust of Sudās’s Vedic Aryans was towards “the
region to the east (…), the Gaṅgā-Yamunā
Doab to which the Bharatas
advanced (…) In this country of the Dāsas
and Asuras”. (Pradhan 2014:188)
Yet, nothing in
the text supports this idea that the Vedic people came from the west and the Dāsas from the east, or that the Dāsas mentioned lived across the Yamuna,
or that the Vedic people were intruders while the Dāsas were the established population, or that the Aryans even
outside the context of this battle were on the move from west to east. On the
contrary, twice and in two different ways, the source text says it is the Dāsas and Dasyus who came from the west. It says that they have come to the
“east” for a fight and that these “godless ones” are turned back “westward”
(7:6:3); and it has them come from the westerly Asiknī/Chenab river valley to challenge and fight Sudās on the shores of the easterly Paruṣṇī/Ravi. That doesn’t mean they were intruders into India,
though: it is a big country, and it is most unlikely that any of the warring
parties identified with India as a whole (as opposed to their own slice of it)
as “their” country.
Even Pradhan,
otherwise very careful to toe the orthodox line, breaks ranks with his Western
mentors by accepting as simply obvious the Iranian identity of the Ten Kings,
e.g.: “their Indo-Iranian past gave the Dāsas
the institution of sacrifice” (Pradhan 2014:124), “their Aryan antecedents
become clear from the Avestā and the
Greek historians’ notices of the Dahae and the Parnoi” (Pradhan 2014:132). He
silently passes over the improbable implication that this would put the
Iranians where he had earlier located the Ten Kings, viz. east of the Yamuna, a
rather unorthodox hypothesis.
Other
Indian authors too have made this Iranian identification. Thus, in an otherwise
confused account, Verma & Verma (1994:4) assert nonetheless that the Pakthas are “today’s Pakhtuns” while the
Bhalānas “were associated with the
Bolan Pass” and the Parśu were “a
people of ancient Persia” (1994:9).
So everything,
including a western-neighbourly location, points to the Iranians. Nothing is
there to deny it, nothing points to anyone else.
The enemies’ religion
The heroes of this
hymn, the Tṛtsus (a clan around seven successive kings belonging to the
broader Bhārata dynasty, including Sudās), are Āryas and supported
by Indra. The enemy camp as a whole
is deemed anindra, “without Indra”
(7:18:16), in a verse that seems to furnish the first instance of this term. Later books use this as a standard allegation of the
enemies: “Indra-less destructive spirit” (RV 4:23.7), “how can those without Indra and without hymns
harm me?” (RV 5:2:3), “enemies without Indra”, truth-haters (RV
1:133:1), “my enemies
without Indra” (RV 10:48:7), “Indra-less libation-drinkers” (RV 10:27:6, according to Geldner 2003/3:166,
a “reminiscence of 7:18:16”).
Included in the
enemy camp are the Dasyus, described as “faithless, rudely-speaking Paṇis/niggards, without belief,
sacrifice or worship” (RV 7:6:3). Other seers call them “without sacrifice” (RV
1:33:4, 8:70:11), “without oath” (RV 1:51:8, 1:175:3, 6:14:3, 9:41:2),
“riteless” (RV 10:22:8), “godless” (adeva,
RV 8:70:11), “faithless” (RV 1.33.9, 2:22:10), “prayerless” (RV 4:16:9),
“following different rites” (RV 8:70:11, 10:22:8).All these are properties
pertaining to religion. Dasyus are the Dāsas’ priests and the
special target of Vasiṣṭha’s ire. In
fact, opposition to the Dasyus is a
general Vedic trait: “Dasyus never
figure as rich or powerful enemies. They are depicted as sly enemies who incite
others into acts of boldness (6:24:8) (…) The Dasyus are clearly regarded with uncompromising hostility, while
the hostility towards the Dāsas is
relatively mild” (Talageri 2000:253).
Sudās’s court priest is less interested in and less incensed against the Dāsa warriors who do the actual
fighting, and more in the Dasyu ideologues
who have turned the battle in a competition between different pantheons and
different ways of pleasing them.
The Iranian
religion fits Vasiṣṭha’s description.
The Vedic seers saw a very similar religious practice and a very similar
worldview, of people whom they understood in spite of a different accent, and
therefore were extra sensitive to the points where the Athravans had “deviated” from the Vedic standard. Consider: the
Mazdeans are “without fire-sacrifice”: they don’t throw things into the sacred
fire, because they hold it even more sacred than the Vedic sacrificial priests,
who still use it as a channel towards the gods. An Avestan yasna is not a Vedic yajña.
They don’t worship
the Devas, whom they have demonized: Daēva
effectively means “devil”. Conversely, the Vedic Aryans originally worshipped
but ultimately demonized the Asuras (Hale
1986). Among the gods, Indra in particular was identified with the
principle of Evil or Falsity, though his substantivated epithet Verethraghna
(“Vṛtra-slayer”) was separated from him and remained popular.
We may speculate
that in an earlier confrontation, Indra did not give them victory, so
they demonized him, turning him into the “angry spirit”, Angra Mainyu.
Vedic Manyu (addressee of RV
10:83-84) was a name of Indra in his aspect of fury and passion. Aṅgra
seems to be a pun on the Aṅgiras, the clan of his priests. (In the
subsequent Vārṣāgira battle, the Bhārata enemies of the Mazdeans call
themselves aṅgirobhiraṅgirastama,
“most swift/aṅgiras among the swift/aṅgiras”, RV 1:100:3.) Alternatively, the far Northwest of the
Subcontinent has no clear monsoon, a time opened with a thunderstorm signified
by Indra. During their migrations as
sketched in the Purāṇas, the Ānavas are said to have moved from the
Western Gaṅgā basin, which has a
monsoon, to Kashmir and then West-Panjab, where the memory of a monsoon must
have faded, so Indra became less
relevant and easily identified with the people from monsoon territory.
Another element
that may have played a role here, is Vasiṣṭha’s
stated opposition to magic:
“Let the heroes (…) prevail against all godless arts of magic” (RV 7:1:10),
“Against the sorcerers hurl your bolt” (RV 7:104:25). Human experience teaches the perfect compatibility
of this “skeptical” position with the fact that his own sacrificial rituals believed
to be the cause of battlefield victories equally amount to magic. At any rate,
this cursed sorcery was identified with the Asuras,
who are often depicted in later, Puranic stories as more resourceful than the Devas. Magic sits at the centre of the Atharva Veda, named after the kind of
priest dominant among the Iranians, the Athravans,
and held in lower esteem than the Veda-trayī,
the other three Vedas. In this case, it is not yet clear what was cause and
what was effect: magic (from Magoi,
the Greek name of the Iranian priests) was associated with the Iranians, and
both the one and the other were mistrusted.
Finally, on the Vedic side, it is possible that Varuṇa’s identity with the enemies’ god Ahura Mazdā had something to do with his
decline and gradual disappearance from the Vedic horizon: “One notices the
decline of Varuṇa in Book X, which
has no hymn for him (…) If he is seen in his glory in some of the Family Books,
Book X registers his decline and subordination to Indra.” (Pradhan 2014:153-154) At any rate, he did decline, both in
power and in moral stature: “Varuṇa,
who is now second to Indra unlike in
VI, VII and IV, is reduced to singing his praises (…) Varuṇa of Books X and I acquires semi-demoniacal features which he
did not have in the Family Books (…)
the former guardian of immortality is now associated with the world of the dead
(…) unlike in the early Ṛgveda, the [later]
Saṁhitās treated Varuṇa with dread” (Pradhan 2014:156).
This is only a
partial and gradual demonization of Varuṇa
the Asura, nothing like the radical
demonization of Indra the Daēva. But this is commensurate with the
fleeting Paurava war psychology as
against the deep grudge the Ānavas
bore after their defeat.
Who the enemies were not
None of the names
or nicknames associated with the Ten Kings, their tribes or their religion is
attested in Dravidian, Munda, Burushaski, Kusunda, Nahali, Tibetan or any other
nearby language. Most of them, by contrast, are completely transparent as
Iranian names. Similarly, their stated religious identification points to the
Mazdean tradition. Yet, quite a few translators and students of the Vedas
insist that they are the “black aboriginals”, with full academic sanction, e.g.: “Indra subjected the aboriginal tribes of the Dāsas/Dasyus to the Aryans.” (Elizarenkova 1995:36)
The first reason
is that those targeted by Vasiṣṭha are
mṛdhravāc (RV 7:6:3), “babblers
defective in speech” (Wilson), “rudely-speaking” (Griffith), “wrongly speaking”
(“misredend”, Geldner), or “of
disdainful words” (Jamison and Brereton). This is not normally said of people
speaking a foreign language, but of people who are comprehensible yet don’t use
the accent or the sociolinguistic register we are used to. Still it is popularly
thought that this refers to foreigners, the way the European settlers in
America considered the Amerindians alien.
The second reason
is the frequent use of the word “black” as referring to the enemies, enemies:
the asikni viśa, “the black tribe”
(7:5:3, apparently repeated in another anti-“godless” verse, 9:73:5, tvacam asiknīṁ). But the use of “black”
is not as pregnant with sinister racist implications as if often made out. Hock
(1999) shows that this is but an application of a universal symbolism relating
whiteness or lightness to what is good or friendly, and darkness or blackness
to what is threatening, inimical or evil. In the writer’s country, Belgium,
collaborators with the German occupier during World War II were called Blacks
(“zwarten”), resistance fighters
Whites (“witten”). Colour symbolism
in India has many applications unrelated to race, e.g. the “white” and the
“black” Yajur-Veda are merely the
well-ordered and transparent c.q. the miscellaneous and labyrinthine parts.
Moreover, in Vasiṣṭha’s case we are probably dealing
with a pun, a double-entendre: asikni means “black”, but it is also the
name of a river, Asiknī, “the black river”, which happens to be the
river whence the Ten Kings come to do battle. This is a normal type of hydronym,
e.g. the Thames in England and the Demer in Belgium mean “dark (river)” as
well, both names being cognates of Sanskrit tamas,
“darkness”; just as rivers may have colour names referring to their lighter
aspect, e.g. the Chinese Huanghe,
“Yellow River”. So, “dark tribe” here means “tribe from the Dark River”.
In this case, the
unimaginative interpretation of this pun as indicating a black skin colour in
the enemy, has been unusually consequential. The British-colonial as well as
the Nazi-imperial narrative was that the presumed “White Aryan conquest of
India from the Black Aboriginals” illustrates the colonial and racialist view
that superior races should rule over the inferior races and that master races
should preserve their purity. All this could have been avoided if the Vedic
words for “black” (asikni, kṛṣṇa) had been interpreted properly.
There was no racial difference between Dāsas
and Āryas, and Iranians (or even
Kashmiris) are not black. They are, if anything, whiter than most Indians.
The Vārṣāgira
battle
A few generations
later, another battle pitted the same tribes against each other. The centre of Ānava culture had by then decisely
shifted from Panjab to Afghanistan, and the confrontation took place on the
then borderline between Vedic-Indian and Afghan-Iranian territory, beyond the Sarayu river (RV 4:30:18) near the Bolan pass in southern
Afghanistan. The battle was very briefly sung esp. in RV 1:100, but may be
alluded to elsewhere. It features Ṛjāśva
the Vārṣāgira, i.e. “descendent of Vṛṣāgir” (RV 1:100:16-17), with Sahadeva (descendant of Sudās and father of Somaka) and three others, as defeating “Dasyus and Śimyus”. The Śimyus are one of the enemy tribes in
the Battle of the Ten Kings, the Dasyus
are the priests of the enemy camp.
The result of this
“victory” is that the kings of both sides survive the battle (as we shall see),
that the division of territory remains the same, and that the chroniclers of
both sides can give their own versions to claim victory. So, with the benefit
of hindsight, the war in this case seems to have been pointless. In the Vedic
account, it does indeed conclude the period of conflict. Bhārata expansionism into Afghanistan seems to have been
overstretched, and subsequent
generations left it to the Iranians: “Good fences make good neighbours.” This
way, the battle ushers in a period of peaceful coexistence forming the setting
of books 2, 5 and 8.
The Avestan version of the same battle first of all exists. That means there are two
accounts of one event. It makes Zarathuštra’s
patron Vištāspa (mentioned by
Zarathuštra himself as his friend, follower and champion) fight against “Arjāsp” or “Arejataspa”, meaning the Vedic king Ṛjāśva.,
as well as against Hazadaēva > Hušdiv and Humayaka, meaning Vedic Sahadeva
and his son Somaka. This is related
in the Ābān Yašt, Yt.5.109, 5.113,
9.130, in which Vištāspa prays for strength to crush the Daēva-worshippers
including Arejatāspa; and much later
in the medieval epic Šāh Namah, esp.
ch.462. (Talageri 2000:214-224,
elaborating on Hodiwala 1913) In the Avestan version, the Iranians are
victorious in the end. Unlike in the Battle of the Ten Kings, here the outcome
is clearly less black-and-white.
A related Vedic hymn could be read as mentioning king Vištāspa:
“kimiṣṭāśva iṣṭaraśmireta īśānāsastaruṣa ṛñjate nṝ na” (RV.I.122.13).
Wilson, like the medieval commentator Sāyana,
identifies it as a name: “What can Iṣṭāśva, (what can) Iṣṭaraśmi,
(what can) those who are now lords of the earth, achieve (with respect) to the
leaders of men, the conquerors of their foes?” Similarly, translator Geldner:
“Werden Iṣṭāśva, Iṣṭaraśmi, diese siegreichen Machthaber, die
Herren auszeichnen?” (“Will Iṣṭāśva, Iṣṭaraśmi, these victorious
sovereigns, honour the lords?”) Other translators have tried for a literal
translation, not as names, but make little sense.
Western Iranologists are of the opinion, or implicitly
assume, that ṚV 1:122 admittedly does mention one Istāśva, but that this
cannot be Kavi Vištāspa, the royal patron of court priest Zarathuštra Spitāma. Some Parsi
und Hindu authors, by contrast, consider the name and this person to be linked
through phonetic transposition (not necessarily etymologically correct) from
the Iranian to the related Vedic dialect. They think that this is one of the
rare cases in ancient history where an event with its protagonists is mentioned
in two different sources, representing the two opposing camps of the event
itself.
Iṣṭāśva would mean
“chosen horse”, “elite horse”, and Indian Sanskritists do explain the name this
way. However, this seems to be a folk etymology. The Iranian original, Vištāspa,
has been analyzed by Oswald Szemerényi (cited by Schwartz 2006:57) as “unyoked
horse”. Originally, this was thought to be an apotropeic name, i.e. a purposely
negative name meant to keep evil spirits at a distance, in casu “horse unfit
for pulling a cart”, “good-for-nothing horse”. But this is not necessary, it
may simply mean, “(owner of a) free-roaming horse”.
At any rate, Szemerényi’s basic interpretation of
“unyoked horse” may explain a hitherto mysterious passage. A hymn significantly
referring to battles against those without Indra and without Devas,
says: “the captor shall yoke the unyoked bullock”. (RV 10:27:9, tra. Griffith)
The Vedas contain numerous puns and metaphors, many of them unidentified or not
understood. This passage may be one such not-yet-understood pun.
Consequences for the age of Zarathuštra
Since
the classical Greeks already, it has been common to date Zarathuštra to the 6th century BC, hardly a few
generations before the Persian wars. In popular literature, this date is still
given, but scholars have now settled for an earlier date: “The archaism of the Gāthās would incline us to situate Zarathuštra in the very beginning of the
first millennium BCE, if not even earlier.” (Varenne 2006:43) But how much
earlier? According to leading scholar SkjaervØ (2011:350), “Zoroastrianism (…)
originated some four millennia ago”.
Well,
we bet on an even earlier date. If Zarathuštra
was contemporaneous with the Vārṣāgira
battle, and at any rate with the Ṛg-Veda,
he must have lived either in ca. 1400 according to the Aryan Invasion Theory
(AIT), or earlier. The fact that the Vedic people had the Iranians as their
western neighbours and fought with them, does not by itself prove anything
about the homeland of their language family, and is in itself compatible with
the AIT. But for other reasons, the AIT has been argued to be wrong (Kazanas
2015:268, Talageri 2000 and 2008), and if we go by the Out-of-India scenario,
the events from the Ṛg-Veda’ Family Books are lifted back into the third
millennium.
Independent
of the relation with Vedic history, the Avestā
itself gives more reasons for Zarathuštra’s
ancientness, though not dated with precision. The first chapter of the Vendidād, discussed in Gnoli 1985:24-30,
lists sixteen countries fit for Iranian habitation: most are parts of
Afghanistan or due north of it (but not towards the Aral Lake, as the Aryan
Invasion Theory would make you expect, nor the more westerly historical
habitats of the Medes, Persians and Scythians), two are parts of Northwest
India. These are Hapta Hendū, the “Land
of Seven Rivers”, roughly Panjab; and Airiiānām
Vaējo (the “Seed of the Aryans”), the first habitat after the Ānava ethnogenesis, which is Kaśmīr: “Given its very Oriental
horizon, this list must be pre-Achaemenid; on the other hand, the remarkable
extendedness of the territories concerned recommends situating them in a period
much later than the Zoroastrian origins. (…) one or several centuries later
than Zarathuštra’s preaching.” (Gnoli
1985:25)
The
Out-of-India Theory (OIT) posits a higher chronology than the AIT, and lifts
the Vedic events at least a thousand years deeper into the past. This finding
about battles against India-based Iranians and notably against Zarathuštra’s patron Vištāspa in the Vedic record forces the
“prophet” into the third millennium. Zarathuštra
this early, that will take some getting used to.
Consequences for “Zarathuštra’s reform”
The picture of Zoroastrianism has long been that first
there was an Indo-Iranian religion roughly equal to what we find in the Vedas,
with an emphasis on ritual, and then Zarathuštra
came and changed everything. He shifted the focus to morality and the notion of
good and evil. He demonized Indra and all the Devas but exalted Varuṇa,
the god of the world order, as the supreme God, Ahura Mazdā, thus becoming a monotheist. He also abolished the fire
sacrifice and “purified” the fire.
So, he was a religious revolutionary? Those familiar
with the usual life stories of Jesus and Mohammed will recognize the type: “The
tradition is undoubtedly truthful when it affirms that Zarathuštra immediately encountered opposition from his peers, the
priests of the established religion. (…) So in preaching monotheism, in
attacking the Daēvas (one of the two
divine ‘clans’) and in electing only Ahura
Mazdā as Supreme God, Zarathuštra
‘broke the temple columns’.” (Varenne 2006:40)
This idea is still
very popular, but has been superseded. First of all, it is not true that Zarathuštra introduced monotheism: “The
pantheon was never eliminated, and Zoroastrianism, in some sense at least,
remained a polytheistic religion throughout its history”. (SkjaervØ 2011:350) At the very least, Mithra and Anāhitā
remained popular deities.
Zarathuštra’s life story too is anachronistic. Zoroastrian
tradition itself, much of it only committed to writing in the Christian age (Arsacide
and Sasanian periods and especially after the beginning of Muslim rule) and
hence not necessarily reliable, says that Vištāspa’s
war against the “Turanians” led by Arjāsp
was provoked by the latter, viz. by his burning down the city of Balx (present-day Mazār-e-Šarīf in the northernmost corner of Afghanistan): “Arjasp,
knowing that this city was without troops, had sent his son Kehram to plunder
it. (….) The victorious Turanians burned the Zend-Avesta, slit the throats of
the priests serving the Āteš-gāhs [=
fire-temples], and quenched the fire with their blood.” (Varenne 2006)
According to Firdausi’s medieval Šāh-Nāmah epic, this was when Zarathuštra
himself, at 77, was killed by an invading soldier. Next, the heroic warrior Gustāsp (apparently the same as Vištāspa) put Arjāsp to flight, but was later encircled by Arjāsp. So we see Iranian tradition reporting several victories by
their enemy; in a tradition of boastful pride, we would only expect this
admission of defeat if it was true and known to be true by the target audience.
However, all is well that ends well: the young hero Espendiar saved the day and killed Arjāsp, a scenario not recorded in the Ṛg-Veda.
This account
is obviously anachronistic, e.g. it presupposes book-burning, which in turn
presupposes the existence of books in Zarathuštra’s society. Yet, everything indicates that
his society was illiterate, and at any rate that the transmission of his
religious corpus was purely oral until well into the Common Age: “Avestan is
written with an alphabet created expressly for the purpose of committing the
corpus to writing (…) between the middle of the 7th and the middle
of the 9th century.” (Martinez & de Vaan 2014:4) For centuries,
perhaps millennia, after its composition, Zarathuštra’s
hymnal collection and other parts of the Avesta
had been learned and passed on by heart, like the Vedas. So there was no
question of book-burning: to destroy a text, you had to kill the whole class of
Brāhmaṇas c.q. Athravans or Magoi.
In this case, though, there is a silver lining to the (temporary)
defeat: it confers martyrdom on Zarathuštra.
Christ’s martyrdom was well-known by the time these texts were written down,
and at any rate, as Varenne (2006:42) remarks: “prophets who die in their beds
are less prestigious than those who get killed for their faith!” Among
South-Asian priests, this kind of martyrdom was uncharacteristic. There are
many unknowns here, but on balance, we consider it probable that this story was
added when the centre of gravity of Iranian culture had shifted to West Asia, where
such martyrdom was more common. Even at the hands of the later Zoroastrians
themselves, such martyrdom is not unknown, e.g. the execution of Mani, founder of Manicheism, 3rd century
CE, by Sasanian head priest Karter. So,
this narrative imitates West-Asian models and has little to do with older
Indian realities.
What also sounds West-Asian, is the classical story of
a wandering preacher who finds God during a lonely retreat, then seeks to
convert the nobility, gets rebuked, and finally finds favour with Kavi Vištāspa, and that only after being
imprisoned by him and doing a miracle. (Molé 1993:57-65) More likely, the Spitāmas had already been serving the Kavi dynasty as hereditary court-priests
for several generations. Family is very important here, and probably the
doctrine for which Zarathuštra became
known was already a family “property” for generations, partly even common to
the Ānava tribe as a whole.
Among other items in doubt is the location of the
“prophet” and his patron in Northern Afghanistan. The hard data in the oldest
layers of the Avesta do not locate him outside the Helmand area in Western Afghanistan. Later history has
back-projected on his life the locations of new centres of Iranian culture,
such as Sogdia (nowadays highlighted by the Zoroastrian-Revivalist government
of Tajikistan), Azerbaijan and, here, Bactria. In between the later accretions
full of embellishments and back-projections, the line of genuine ancient
tradition is very thin. All the more reason to take serious what little
information on early Zoroastrianism that we can glean from Vedic literature.
In the historiography of religions, the reconstruction
of Zarathuštra’s life is an important
topic, but gaining clarity about it is marred by the paucity of material, the
later inclination to competitive hagiography, and the distortive influence of
West-Asian models. For now, we may agree that here, the core of genuine facts
is hard to discern underneath these distortive elements. Among the few certainties,
we have the eastern, Afghan location of Zarathuštra
and his patron Vištāspa, and their
opposition to Indra and the Daēvas.
But even here, the traditional picture has got to be
amended. The reforms often associated with Zarathuštra,
viz. Mazdeism being anindra, adeva and ayajña, (godless, Indra-less
and without fire sacrifice) were already proverbially associated with the
Iranians during the Battle of the Ten Kings, several generations earlier.
Probably his Spitāma (‘white-clad”)
family was already serving as hereditary court priests of the Kavi dynasty. Hence the apparent pun on
this family name in the reports on the first battle: śvitnya (RV 7:33:1 and 7:83:8, explained in 7:33:9 and 7:33:12,
identified as a pun by Talageri 2000:213-214).
This, then, is one of the more important Iranological
insights that follow from this Vedic information. The points on which Mazdeism
differs from the Vedic tradition are not innovations propagated by a lone
prophet, but predated Zarathuštra by
generations. He was only the spokesman of already existing community, but
became famous because he took the trouble of casting his ideas into poems. It
was already a collective heritage of a large community among the Ānavas including the Kavi dynasty. How that heritage in turn
came into being, is beyond even our Vedic sources, but it doesn’t require a
specific cause or reason. “Vedic” India was culturally a diverse landscape
where every community had its own religious idiosyncrasies, all while also
having many practices and ideas in common. The Vedic tradition came about as
one of these sister traditions, essentially on a par with what became the
Avestan tradition.
Conclusion
It has become
entirely certain that the Iranians feature prominently in the Ṛg-Veda. Their conflict with the Vedic
Aryans is described in some detail, leading to the predominance of the latter
in an ever larger territory, and to a relocation of the Iranian mainstay to
Afghanistan and countries further west.
A slight bit less
certain, but for all practical purposes undeniable, is that the Vedic account
even refers to king Vištāspa and his
famous employee, Zarathuštra. This
implies that they can be dated relatively, viz. as old as the middle period of
the Ṛg-Veda. This should put an end
to the bizarre situation that scholars of Iranian are in the dark about the
founder of the tradition they study, doubting not only his age and location but
even his existence.
At the same time,
we learn that Zarathuštra was not the
founder. He became the celebrated spokesman, through his hymns, of a worldview
that flourished among his tribe. The genesis of this worldview is still to be
traced, but disappears behind the horizon of Vedic beginnings.
Bibliography
Avesta, the Sacred Scripture
of the Parsees, Vaidika Samsodhana Mandala, Bombay 1962.
Bhargava, P.L.,
1971 (1956): India in the Vedic Age,
Lucknow: Upper India Publishing House.
--: 1998 (1984): Retrieval
of History from Puranic Myths, Delhi: D.K. Printworld.
Elizarenkova, J.,
1995: Language and Style of the Vedic Ṛṣis,
Albany: SUNY.
Elst, Koenraad, 2013: “The Indo-European, Vedic and post-Vedic meanings
of Ārya”, Vedic Venues 2, p.57-77, Kolkata: Kothari Charity Trust.
Fortson, Benjamin,
2004: Indo-European Language and Culture.
An Introduction, Oxford: Blackwell.
Geldner, Karl
Friedrich, 2003 (1951): Der Rigveda
(1-2-3, in one volume), Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.
Gnoli, Gherarda,
1985: De Zoroastre à Mani, Paris,
Institut d’Etudes Iraniennes, Sorbonne.
Griffith, Ralph, 1991
(1): The Ṛgveda, Delhi: Motilal
Banarsidass.
Hale, Wash Edward,
1986: Asura in Early Vedic Religion,
Motilal Banarsidass, Delhi.
Hock, Hans
Heinrich, 1999: “Through a glass darkly: modern ‘racial’ interpretations vs.
textual and general prehistoric evidence on ārya
and dāsa/dasyu in Vedic society”, p.145-174
in Bronkhorst, Johannes, and
Deshpande, Madhav, eds. 1999: Aryan and
Non-Aryan in South Asia. Evidence, Interpretation and Ideology, Cambridge
MA: Harvard.
Hodiwala, Shapurji
Kavasji, 1913: Zarathushtra and His
Contemporaries in the Rigveda, Bombay: Hodiwala.
Hume, Robert
Ernest, 1977 (1921): The Thirteen
Principal Upanishads, Oxford: OUP.
Insler, S., 1975: The Gāthās of Zarathustra, in Acta Iranica, series 3, vol.1,
Teheran-Liège: Bibliothèque Pahlavi.
Jamison,
Stephanie, and Brereton, Joel, 2014: The
Rigveda. The Earliest Religious Poetry of India, Oxford/New York: OUP.
Kazanas, Nicholas,
2015: Vedic and Indo-European Studies,
Delhi: Aditya Prakashan.
Krishna, Nanditha,
2014 (2007): The Book of Demons.
Including a Dictionary of Demons in Sanskrit Literature, Delhi: Penguin.
Martínez, Javier, and de Vaan, Michiel, 2014: Introduction to Avestan, Leiden: Brill.
Molé, Marijan, 1993: La Légende de
Zoroastre selon les Textes Pehlevis, Paris: Peeters.
Nagar, Shantilal,
2012: Biographical Dictionary of Ancient
Indian Rishis, Delhi: Akshaya Prakashan.
Oldenberg, Hermann, 1894: Die Religion des Veda, Berlin, W. Hertz.
Pargiter, F.E.,
1962: Ancient Indian Historical Tradition,
Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.
Pusalker, A.D.,
1996 (1951): The Vedic Age, vol.1. of
Majumdar, R.C., ed.: The History and
Culture of the Indian People, Bombay: Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan.
Schwartz, Martin,
2006: “How Zarathuštra generated the Gathic corpus”, Bulletin of the Asia
Institute 16, .53-64.
Siddhantashastree,
R., 1978: History of the Pre-Kali-Yuga
India, Delhi: Inter-India Publications.
SkjaervØ, Prods
Oktor, 2011: “Zarathustra: a Revolutionary Monotheist?”, p. 317-350, in
Pongratz-Leisten, Beate 2011: Reconsidering
the Concept of Revolutionary Monotheism, Winona Lake IN: Eisenbrauns.
Talageri,
Shrikant, 2000: The Rigveda, an
Historical Analysis, Delhi: Aditya Prakashan.
--, 2008: The Rigveda and the Avesta, the Final
Analysis, Delhi: Aditya Prakashan.
Varenne, Jean,
2006: Zoroastre, le Prophète de l’Iran,
Paris: Dervy, Paris.
Verma, H.N., and
Verma, Amrit, 1994: Decisive Battles of India, Campbell CA: GIP Books.
Wilson, H.H., 1997
(1860): Ṛg-Veda-Saṁhitā, Delhi:
Parimal Publications..
