Origin of the Proto-Indo-European Tribes
As per the Out of India hypothesis, the Páñcajánāḥ tribes were the Proto-Indo-European tribes which had spread the Indo-European languages to the Europe and the rest of Asia from the north-western part of India.
The predecessors of the Páñcajánāḥa/ Aiḷa tribes and the Ikṣvākus were the Pre-Proto-Indo-Europeans who belonged to the Bhiranna eneolithic of Sarasvati-Drishadvati basin. The Aiḷas (Páñcajánāḥa) and the Ikṣvākus had spread to the rest of North India and beyond from the Sarasvati-Drishdavati basin.
This article will focus on the emergence of these Proto-Aryan tribes and their expansion in north India based on literary and Archeological evidences.
Some Acronyms :-
(i) IE - Indo-European
(ii) PIE - Proto-Indo-European
(I) Pre-PIE homeland
Eastern Ganga-Valley as the homeland for pre-PIE tribes
The Puranic legends point out that the Aiḷa tribes and the Ikṣvākus spread from the modern day Ayodhya-Prayagraj region. This is highly unlikely because the this region was inhabited by the South Asian Hunter Gatherers (AASI people) who cannot be the vectors for the spread of Indo-European languages.
The Proto-Indo-Europeans as per the genetic evidence from the Indus Saraswati Civilization carried IranN type ancestry (also called IndiaN as it was different from IranN as per Shinde et al).
 |
| Neolithic sites of Eastern Ganga Valley. |
Another reason is that there is no archeological evidence in support of a migration taking place from the Neolithic sites of East Uttar Pradesh to the Sarasvati-Drishdavati basin and there is no Archeological discontinuity in Sarasvati-Drishadvati sites of and Bhiranna and Kalibangan.
Even the ṚgVeda the oldest Indo-European document does not point towards a homeland that lies far east.
Hence, it is highly unlikely that the Proto-Aryans came from this region, and the original Pratiṣṭhāna from where the Aiḷas (and later the Pūrus) ruled was probably somewhere in the west (in Sarasvati-Drishadvati basin).
Sarasvati-Drishadvati Basin as the homeland for Pre-PIE tribes
I find Bhiranna eneolithic of Sarasvati-Drishadvati region, the best candidate for the Pre-Proto-Indo-European homeland from where the Aiḷas and Ikṣvākus originated.
It is due to the following reasons :-
(i) Bhiranna was the precursor of the Hakra-ware culture which itself was the predecessor of the the Indus-Saraswati Civilization. According to eminent archeologist, Rafique Mughal the OCP culture (archeological culture associated with the Eastern Pūrus) descended from the Hakra-ware culture which again points out that the Hakra-ware was the mother of all Aryan cultures of India.
 |
| Bhiranna and other SSC sites |
This site is the oldest chalcolithic site in India which entered in the Chalcolithic period slightly before 6000 BCE and it was in continuity from 7500 BCE to 800 BCE. Interestingly copper arrows have been found from period I of this site.
(ii) The region of Bhiranna eneolithic was inhabited by the IndiaN (IranN ancestry type farmers) farmers who genetically contributed to the population of both the Indus-Saraswati Civilization and the Yamnaya culture (this is already shown by the model of a self-taught geneticist, Ashish Kulkarni). Here's the source for the migration of IndiaN type ancestry to the Steppe eneolithic IndiaN ancestry in Steppe Neolithic
Shinde et al and Narsimhan et al (2019) make it clear that this ancestry formed the base of the Harappans as it ranges from 50-98% in the Mature Harappan population. As per Narsimhan et al 2019 the mixing between IndiaN and AASI happened between 4483 - 3800 BCE, when AASI population entered North western India from south.
(iii) Pṛthu Vainya and Sarasvati : Pṛthu Vainya is considered as the most primordial king in the Hindu texts, the Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa verse 3.5.4. calls him the first anointed king and Vayu Purana calls him Ādiraja.
He is so ancient that the Puranas place him before the current Manvantar. The Atharvaveda credits him of the invention of ploughing which makes it clear that he must have lived in the Early Chalcolithic times. Hence we can conclude that he was probably a Pre-PIE patriarch/chieftain who lived before the emergence of Aiḷas and Ikṣvākus.
Now the crux of the argument is that he dwelled in the Sarasvati-Drishadvati region. We have the evidence of Hieun-Tsang who records the existence of the town in Haryana called Pehowa, named after Pṛthu.
Another place associated with Prithu is Prithudaka (lit. "Prithu's pool"), a town on the banks of Sarasvati river, where Prithu is believed to have performed the Shraddha of his father. The town is referred to as the boundary between Northern and central India and referred to by Patanjali as the modern Pehowa.
So from the above evidence it is clear that Pṛthu Vainya, the Neolithic patriarch/chieftain who lived before Aiḷas & Ikṣvākus was from Sarasvati-Drishadvati basin.
(iv) The Puranas and the Vedas indirectly point out the Haryana homeland : We all the know that the five Puranas record the migration of the Aiḷas in the form of a legend :-
+ Anu migrated Northwards in the Kashmir region and established his dynasty.
+ Druhyu migrated Westwards in Punjab (Aratta) and established his dynasty.
+ Yadu migrated Southwards and founded his kingdom there (in S. Rajasthan region and beyond).
+ Turvaṣas are located East of the Yadus and Brāhmaṇas associate them with Kampilya -Kannauj region.
+ Puru inherited the middle kingdom (the land which served as the homeland for the other tribes) from where his father, Yayāti ruled.
Now what else could be a better land of origin for these 5 tribes other than Haryana ?
Kashmir (where Anus migrated) is north of Haryana (Saraswati-Drishadvati region), Rajasthan region of Banas(where Yadav-Saisabindus ruled) is south of Haryana (not south of Prayagraj).
Punjab (Aratta) where Druhyus went according to the Puranic texts (they migrated westwards) to the immediate west of Haryana but not of Prayagraj. Kannauj-Kampilya region where Turvaṣas lived is north of Prayagraj (which makes it self-contradictory for a Eastern Gangetic homeland because the Ānavas were to the North of Pūrus in Kashmir).
Therefore, the Aiḷa tribes migrated from the Sarasvati-Drishadvati basin to rest of India and later beyond India.
(II) Expansion of the Pre-PIE tribes from the Sarasvati-Drishdavati Basin.
 |
| Emergence of Aiḷas and Ikṣvākus from their land of origin |
(Identification of these tribes shown in the map are done by Indologist SG Talageri)
The Aiḷas and the Ikṣvākus trace their origin to the Sarasvati-Drishdavati basin as shown in the map. The Ikṣvākus had migrated to the east before the emergence of Aiḷa clans before 5000 BCE.
The ṚgVeda and Puranas place the Ikṣvākus/Tṛkṣis in the far east (Eastern UP/ Avadh region). Indologist Shrikant Talageri has written extensively about the Ikṣvākus in his blogpost "The Ikṣvākus in ṚgVeda" by S. Talageri
Aiḷa/Páñcajánāḥa tribes
Before and around 5000 BCE the Aiḷa tribe was limited to the Sarasvati-Drishadvati basin in the vicinity of old Hakra-ware culture. Chalcolithic sites of Bhiranna, Hisar, Kunal and Kalibangan flourished in this region during that period.
 |
| Páñcajánāḥ tribes around ~4500 BCE |
After 5000 BCE we see emergence of five Aiḷa clans and expansion of these clans from the Sarasvati-Drishadvati basin. This expansion is marked by the emergence of a new chalcolithic culture in Mewar region and biological discontinuity in Mehrgarh that happened around 4500 BCE.
Great post. I agree with most of it.
ReplyDeleteIt will be good to stop using the words and phrases 'Tribe' and 'Indo-European'.
Better to use 'Group of People', Indian, Sanskrit, Proto Indian, Proto Sanskrit, etc.
I am sorry. Please try to understand that it's highly unscholarly to use the terms that you've mentioned. Remember the term Indo-European also has "Indo" in it meaning India.
DeleteIndo-European has 'European' in it.
DeleteWhat has Europe got to do with anything in this post?
It deals only with India and nothing but India.
A good scholar should coin new terms or abandon old terms when required.
You just have to explain the reason for the change.
Languages of Europe are related to the langauges of India, kindly educate yourself on linguistics instead of making such preposterous claims. These languages went to Europe that's why Europe is used here. You're talking about scholars ? All major scholars use the term Indo-European you're the only unscholarly folk who's asking others not to use this word 😂
DeleteThe correct history of languages is as follows:
ReplyDeleteSanskrit developed in India, starting in about 4,000 BCE, by people completely indigenous to North West India.
Some of the Proto Sanskrit speakers, such as Dhruyu,migrated out of India around 3,000 BCE. They migrated via Central Asia upto Europe and their language influenced European languages.
Other Sanskrit speakers, New Vedic Sanskrit speakers, migrated out of India around 2,000 BCE, these groups went to North Syria / Eastern Anatolia and Iran.
The phrase Indo-European was coined in early 19th century, I think in 1813, when the full and correct history was not known. The view at that time was that there was a common ancestral language for Sanskrit and European languages.
Since we now know that Sanskrit is the source this phrase should be avoided.
Sanskrit did not exist in those times even Vedic language isn't Sanskrit.
DeleteIt was the ancestral language of Hittite, Tocharian, Celtic, Sanskrit, etc. And the term used for it is Proto-Indo-European.
Now wheather you call PIE Proto-Sanskrit, Proto-Hindi or Proto-Bhojpuri it's on you. Sanskrit emerged when Panini codified Vedic language. The word Saṃskṛt itself means purified.
I can only express my views. I don't copy others' views.
DeleteWhen facts show that others are wrong, I say so.
The first sentence of this blog post should be edited.
From:
"As per the Out of India hypothesis, the Páñcajánāḥ tribes were the Proto-Indo-European tribes which had spread the Indo-European languages to the Europe and the rest of Asia from the north-western part of India."
To
"As per the Out of India hypothesis, the Páñcajánāḥ were Indians who spread Proto-Sanskrit or other dialects of Sanskrit to Europe and
New Vedic Sanskrit to the rest of Asia from North-Western part of India."
This is what I have understood from Shri Srikant Talageri's work and your post above.
I was always under the impression that Vedas are in Sanskrit, since childhood.
I heard the phrase Indo-European Language family only recently.
Vedic language is certainly Sanskrit,
Older Mandalas are Old Vedic Sanskrit and New Mandalas are New Vedic Sanskrit.
Pre-Vedic Sanskrit can be called Proto-Sanskrit.
Dhruyu, Anu, Iksvaku, etc., probably spoke different dialects of Sanskrit,
different from the Vedic Sanskrit spoken by Puru who were the authors of the Vedas.
Upanishads, Ramayana and Mahabharata were composed by Iksvaku, in Classical Sanskrit.
Panini Sanskrit came later.
It is possible the name Sanskrit was first used by Panini, but there is no problem in using to describe earlier versions of the same language, with suitable prefixes.
We can say Dhruyu Sanskrit, Anu Sanskrit, etc., to refer to the dialects spoken by them.
Just as we say Telangana Telugu and Andhra Telugu, etc.
'Indo-European' was coined in 1813,
yet you are willing to use it for a language used in ~3,000 BCE.
'Sanskrit' was coined in ~500 BCE,
But you have some reservation about using it for the ancestral version of same language.
If you can't the absurdity of your logic, I can't make you understand.
Shrikant Talageri himself exposed your absurdity in his blogs. Please don't comment here I am least interested in talking to an unscholarly obstinate folk. Even Harappan Civilization was coined in 20th century does that mean Harappan civilization never existed ?
DeleteThe name of that hypothetical language is PIE no wheather you call it Proto-Sanskrit or Proto-Bhojpuri is upto you.
What is absurd about my view point?
DeleteYou can disagree, but all my points have excellent logic.
A civilization was discovered in late 19th and early 20th century on banks of River Sindu / Indus. The issue is what to call it?
Harappan is the first city discovered.
Indus is the river on which Harappa and Mohenja Daro were located.
Rig Veda mentions River Saraswathi and Bharat.
So this civilization can be called Harappan / Indus Valley / Saraswathi / Bharatiya, etc.
I prefer Saraswathi or Bharatiya since Rig Veda is the original record of this Civilization.
Languages develop slowly over time.
Proto-Sanskrit is NOT a hypothetical language,
Vedic language must have had a previous version, so it has to be given a name.
I got the idea that there is no Indo-European language family at all from Shri Talageri, he said this in one of his talks available on YouTube, unfortunately I lost tract of which one.
Many languages east of India have Sanskrit words, Malay, Japanese, etc., but they are not IE languages.
One point no linguist has discussed so far, based on my limited reading, is the structure of the alphabet. Sanskrit groups Vowels and Consonants separately, Greek, Latin, etc., mix up Vowels and Consonants.
When did Sanskrit develop the concept of some syllables being Vowels and others being Consonants?
Why didn't this feature migrate from India to Europe or even to Iran?
Only words migrated out, not the basic structure.
One possible answer is that only Puru and later Iksvaku used the Sanskrit alphabet structure, others did not. The outward migration to the West was by the other groups and not of Puru and Iksvaku.
Dravidian languages and Sanskrit have similar alphabet structure, but different words.
This may be because Sanskrit was brough to South India by the Iksvaku.
Alphabet similarity has nothing to do with language family. It depends more on script like if you'll write Sindhi in Urdu script alphabets will change.
DeleteTalageri never said that you might have misheard him saying that he himself called your argument absurd in his vlogs.
A script is just a way to write the alphabet, it is not the alphabet itself.
DeleteLetters are a way of writing syllables.
Sanskrit did not have a script from inception till ~500 BCE.
Do you mean that it did not have an Alphabet in this period.
How did the composers of the Vedas learn the language without an alphabet,
they had to learn the syllables in some sequence.
The sequence can't be random.
Everything in and about the Vedas is systematic and logical.
So the syllables too must have been structured in a logical manner.
Alphabets depend on script not language. If you change the script of Urdu to devnagri it's alphabets will eventually change. Sounds aren't alphabets.
DeleteYou lack basic knowledge man
Vedic Sanskrit started around 3,500 BCE, it was a purely oral language till about 500 BCE. What was the structure of the language in this 3,000 year period.
DeleteHow was it taught?
When did the grouping of
Vowels in one sequence - A, Aa, E, Ee, ... ; and
Consonants separately Ka, Kha, Ga, Gha, ... start?
This structuring has nothing to do with script.
This is what I mean by Alphabet.
If you do not wish to call this alphabet, what is it called?
Don't quibble over words, understand my point carefully.
Syllables came first and then script, in every language.
My point is about the sequencing of the Syllables [ whether you call it Alphabet or not], not the script.