[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

Re: REQUEST : Partholan, Indian & Celtic?

Shrisha Rao <shrao@nyx.net> wrote in article <ghenDzqLC8.5xJ@netcom.com>...
> Greetings.
> 
> I was somewhat intrigued by Jaldhar Vyas's response in this thread,
> and hence asked a friend who's a post-doc in linguistics to comment.
> I include the response, which I believe to be of interest to SRH
> readers, with the author's permission:
> 
> Begin quote --
> 
> > There is however some connection between Indian and Celtic mythology. 
Note
> > much of the "scientific facts" concerning this are little more than
> > scientific guesses but here is what they've managed to come up with.
>                                       ^^^^
> Who on earth are "they?"
> 

They meaning members of the scholarly community.

>   This guy is just tossing out an amalgam of various instantiations of
> Aryan Invasion theories, in which case, "they" would be every crank,
half-
> educated historian who believes the random neuronal firings in his head
are
> an adequate substitute for science.

Quite possibly.  I take a lay interest in Indology so obviously I don't
know have all the means to determine the worth of this or that a scholar as
someone who is actively working in the field but I studied this stuff at
Columbia University.  While it's possible the curriculum for some of these
courses was out of date, somehow I doubt Columbia would present random
neuronal firings.

> 
> > The
> > consensus seems to be somewhere in the Caucausus Mountains area.)  
> 
> Consensus among whom?  I have seen no consensus whatsoever on this matter
> among linguists or anthropologists.
> 

Ok consensus amongst the authors I've read.  I'm sure there are other
views.  Is anyone seriously suggesting India as a source?
 
> > At one time the theory was they conquered and
> > destroyed the indigenous cultures but while there was probably fighting
> > here and there, it now seems their superior technology (inventions such
as
> > the chariot and iron implements) were more responsible for their
success.
> 
> More conjecture.  The theory has been revised only in light of
> political correctness.  There is no evidence either way; the details
> in any version are all equally speculative and unsupported; so there
> is no way to adjudicate among them.

I fully admit this is conjecture.  I've only presented it as such.  And
it's quite plausible this was revised in the light of politics.  It
wouldn't be the first time.

> 
> Nor has it been proven that they did not borrow their knowledge of
> chariots and iron implements from non-IE spekaing cultures.
> 


> > These people called themselves Arya or noble (which is the meaning of
Arya
> > in Sanskrt to this day.)
> 
> We have no idea what they called themselves.  There is no evidence
> which links them to the Sanskrit word, Arya.
> 
> > Echos of their name survives in Iran and Erin. 
> 
> I'd have to check this one in Buck.  First time I've heard of it.
> 
> [NOTE: "Buck" refers to a famous reference text relating to
> Indo-European languages, by Carl Darling Buck. -- SR]
> 
> > Note there is no evidence to suggest there was such a thing as an
"Aryan
> > race" as the Nazis suggested.
> 
> What is the difference between "race" and "people" (n.b. he refers to
this
> group as a "nomadic people" above)?  The position he is citing differs
from
> that of the Nazis only in degree, I think.
> 

You could also say a monkey differs from a human only in degree. :-)  The
Nazis had a clear concept of what they meant by race.  They thought they
could identify specific character and physical traits on the base of racial
and genetic makeup.  Those not belonging to the master race had feeble
genes, weak blood etc.  A "people" as opposed to a "race" as Nazi would
imagine it is a cultural grouping.  For example a "people" would consider
themselves to be superior based on their higher morality.  Perhaps there
are more technical terms for what I'm trying to get at.

> >  Aryan is used mostly to describe a
> > socio-linguistic group nowadays.
> 
> The term, "Aryan," is not used by any competent modern scholar in any
> sub-field of linguistics.
> 

Ok, let me amend that sentence.  "If the word Aryan is used at all, it is
used to describe a socio-linguistic group not a race of people."  I.e.  No
serious scholar suggests there was a specific Aryan race.

> >  Alongside Gaelic, Sanskrt (ancestor of
> > the modern North Indian languages), and Persian, Greek, Latin, Gothic,
the
> > Scandinavian languages and Lithuanian are important languages of the
Aryan
> > group.  This gives you an idea of how far they spread.
> 
> These languages are called Indo-European.  Aryan is not the name of
> any linguistic family.  

Fair enough.  The change in nomenclature hasn't trickled all the way down
though.  Take a look a this entry from the dictionary is Microsoft
Bookshelf 95.

Ar·y·an (âr¹ê-en, àr¹-) noun
1.	See INDO-IRANIAN.
2.	A member of the people who spoke the parent language of the
Indo-European languages.
3.	A member of any people speaking an Indo-European language.
4.	In Nazism, a Caucasian Gentile, especially of Nordic type.

adjective
1.	Of or relating to Indo-Iranian.
2.	Of or relating to the Indo-European languages or the hypothetical
language from which they are derived.
3.	Of or relating to a speaker of an Indo-European language.
4.	In Nazism, of or relating to a Caucasian Gentile.
[From Sanskrit ârya-, noble, Aryan.]

Yes I know a dictionary is not a substitute for current academic research. 
In the process of condensation much nuance is lost.  But I think this quote
from a current reference work shows that the ideas I'm presenting (and
let's make this clear not endorsing) hardly come from left field.


> Nor is it true that common linguistic ancestry
> implies common ethnic or genetic ancestry.  

Exactly my point.

> Nor has it been proven
> that linguistic diffusion entails large-scale migrations of people or
> peoples.
> 

As I'm not trying to prove or disprove it, I find no fault with this
statement.  The idea of a larg-scale migration is an influential theory
though.

> > One interesting feature of the various Aryan cultures is the concept of
two
> > factions of divine beings.  One of these groups is "good" and the other
> > "evil" but otherwise there is not much difference between them.
> 
> In order for this claim to have any predictive value, he must show
> that the "non-Aryan" cultures do not have such a concept.
> 

As far as I know they don't.  Can you give me an example of one that does? 
(Not a rhetorical question.  I'd like to know.)

> > Similiarly the
> > Sanskrt word for Gods, Deva is cognate with the Greek and Latin deos
and
> > deus from which we get English words like deity.
> 
> The Sanskrit word for god in its pre-sandhi form is devas, The word
> for gods (plural) is devaas (long a).  "Deos" does not mean "god" in
> any IE language that I know.  The Greek word for god is "theos."
> Furthermore, "theos" and Latin, deus are not related.  Initial "th" in
> Greek corresponds to initial "f" in Latin, both being descendants of
> proto-IE initial "dh," e.g. Gk.  theeka (ee = eta), "I made,"
> Lat. feci, "I made," Gk. theoo (oo = omega), "I suckle,"
> Lat. fe-min-a, "she who is suckled."
> 
Very well then.  Again I lack the expertise to verify this. Is Dionysus not
a Greek word?  Meaning the God of or from [Mt.] Nysa?

> On the other hand, Latin "Ju-piter" is related to Greek "Zeus" (in
> Homer, Zeu pateer), as well as the Vedic epithet, "dhyaus-pita," all
> meaning "father of the sky."  To my knowledge, this is the only
> confirmed relationship among divine names in the IE languages,

Well Vedic Sanskrt and Avestan share many religious terms.  Soma and Haoma
for instance or Mitra and Mithras.  Did not the Mitanni (Mesopotamia?) have
names similiar to Vedic Gods?  And (again can't confirm) that Varuna is
cognate with Ouranos or Uranus.

> although several of the names for gods in the Vedas are metonymously
> related to common nouns in other languages, e.g. Skt. "Agnis," the god
> of fire, and Latin, "ignis," fire.
> 
> > There were similiarities in religious rituals too.  To quote just one
> > Halloween is a Christian version of the Celtic Samhain which occurs
roughly
> > the same time as the Hindu Shraddha.
> 
> Christianity is not an Indo-European religion.  It was borrowed from the
Near
> East (largely Semitic) beginning in the 1st century A.D. :-)
> 

Of course.  Christianity, especially in it's folk form also did its
borrowing.  As (I thought) I'd clearly pointed out Halloween is the
Christian _version_ of Samhain.  

> >  The chief ceremony of Shraddha
> > involves feeding the worshippers dead ancestors -- the ancient
prototype of
> > the modern American Halloween custom of trick or treating!
> 
> and of the same Confucian practice in China?  

Really?  At the same time of year?  With the same motif of giving gifts to
a stranger?  Is the Chinese ritual a reversal of everyday norms?  (The
rituals of the Shraddha are performed facing south normally an unclean
direction.  Samhain also was associated with normally forbidden behavior.) 

Then there is the idea of creation as resulting from a primordial act of
incest and the resulting punishment of that deed by a vengeful son who
castrates his father.  This occurs in most of the Indo-European
mythologies.

I have already mentioned the idea of Two families of divine beings who are
brothers yet constantly at war.

All these parallels are indeed very week individually but together?  In the
absence of hard facts we must rely on reason and it seems to me to be
unreasonable that unrelated things share so many little coincidences.


>Again, this is practically a cultural universal.  No predictive value.
>

So where is the equivalent amongst semitic cultures?  That "practically"
covers an awful lot of territory.

> > So while it would be a stretch to say India has a version of Celtic
legend
> > (or as Dhanraj Singh would put it Ireland has a version of a Hindu
legend
> > :-) there are some similarities between the two cultures over and above
> > what can be attributed to mere coincidence. 
> 
> I have seen coincidental phenomena with more proof of being related
> than this fellow has presented.

My aim is very modest.  All I want to show is that various Indo-European
cultures show _some_ similiarity.  I don't see anything you're saying as
preventing me from continuing to do so.  I'm unequivocably against the
original posters suggestion that there is a strong relationship.  I.e.
Indian culture = Celtic culture or any other Indo-European culture.

What interests me and what prompted me to post in the first place was
1.  Some Indians continue to make claims of a strong relationship
2.  Some Indians are very perturbed by the notion that some elements of
Indian culture could have developed outside the political boundaries of
Modern India.

I'd like to know why.  As far as I can see it does not impact the practice
of our religion or culture in any way.

-- 
Jaldhar H. Vyas [jaldhar@braincells.com]  o-   beable      .-_|\
Consolidated Braincells Inc.                              /     \
http://www.braincells.com/jaldhar/          Perth Amboy-> *.--._/
"Witty quote" - Dead Guy      finger me for PGP key            v  McQ!
Advertise with us!
This site is part of Dharma Universe LLC websites.
Copyrighted 2009-2015, Dharma Universe.