The following two major works on Vedic India have been released by Aditya Prakashan of Delhi:  

The Deciphered Indus Script: Methodology, Readings, Interpretations by N. Jha and  
N.S. Rajaram, Rs 950 (HB)  

The Rigveda: A Historical Analysis by S. Talageri, Rs 750 (HB)  

The Deciphered Indus Script by N. Jha and N.S. Rajaram provides the  solution to what has been called the major technical problem of history of  our time - the decipherment of the 5000 year-old Indus script. In addition  to the methodology for reading the Indus writing, it provides readings of  hundreds of messages, covering nearly half the known seals. In the process,  it settles once and for all the question of the history and the language of  the Harappans by linking Harappan archaeology to the Vedic literature.  

The Rigveda: A Historical Analysis by S. Talageri, shows by a detailed  analysis of the geography, the seer families and the dynasties mentioned in  the Rigveda that the movement of the ancient people was mainly from east of  the Sarasavti River westward - to the Punjab, Afghanistan, West Asia and  Europe. It identifies the various people from the ancient Purus and the Ikshwakus to the Druids of Europe.  

For information contact:  

Aditya Prakashan  
F-14/65, Model Town II  
Delhi - 110009  
 
The review of Talageri's book by N.S. Rajaram Review and commentary 
A MAJOR NEW WORK ON VEDIC HISTORY 
N.S. Rajaram

The Rigveda 

A Historical Analysis by Shrikant Talgeri (2000), Aditya Prakashan, New Delhi.  
Pages: 520 + xxiv. Price: Rs 750 (HB). Reviewed by Dr. N.S. Rajaram.  

Background  

Seven years ago, Shrikant Talageri, then a thirty-five year old bank official in Mumbai, published a book called Aryan Invasion Theory: A Reappraisal. It created something of a sensation. In addition to refuting the Aryan Invasion Theory of India, he advanced two fundamental theses. First, on the basis of a careful study of the Puranas, he concluded that the expansion of Vedic Aryans was from east to west — the reverse of what is claimed by the Aryan Invasion Theory. Further, he showed that there were repeated migrations out of India — into Iran, the Mediterranean and Celtic Europe that help account for the similarities between Sanskrit and the languages of Europe. At the time of its publication, the attention was mainly on the refutation of the Aryan invasion. But today, with the idea of the Aryan invasion all but dead, it is his thesis of expansion from India westwards, suggesting India as the homeland of the Indo-Europeans that has become the main focus of attention and debate.  

In his new book Rigveda: A Historical Analysis, Talageri has gone considerably further. He has identified the geographical locations and the various tribes who were responsible not only for the Vedic Civilization of India, but also those that went beyond India's borders to seed the Iranian and European Civilizations in prehistoric times. Where his earlier book was based on the Puranas, the present work draws on the most basic literary source of all — the Rigveda. Distinguished by meticulous attention to detail and a systematic analysis of the sources, the book is set to become a standard reference for the study of ancient civilizations. It comes at a propitious time when old theories, with their origins in European colonial politics and the Christian missionary movement, are crumbling, and a vigorous new school of research drawing on a combination of modern science and ancient tradition is opening new horizons. But first, some background.  

It has been known from at least the time of sage Yaska that several approaches to the study of the Vedas are possible and needed to understand their meaning and significance. These include the spiritual, scientific, grammatical, linguistic, historical and the etymological — the last of which was explored by Yaska himself in his masterpiece the Nirukta, which itself was the culmination of many generations of etymological research. (For more details see The Deciphered Indus Script by N. Jha and N.S. Rajaram, Aditya Prakashan, especially Chapter 4.) The fact that different schools of thought in the study of the Vedas existed in ancient times is clear from such works as Rk-Pratishakhya (grammatical), Brihaddevata (historical) and several others. But due to the vagaries of history, this free spirited approach to the Vedas came to be eroded, and, by the Middle Ages, hardened into the ritualistic interpretation of Sayana (1315 - 1387 AD). It should be said in Sayana's defense that he recognized both the validity and the existence of other approaches.  

This was the situation well into the nineteenth century, with Sayana's Bhashyas (commentaries) holding the fort as the ultimate authority on the interpretation of the Vedas. (For the sake of convenience I shall be using spellings that are close to phonetic in place of the standard international.) But in the nineteenth century, there arose two movements that challenged Sayana's authority: a cultural revival brought about by Maharshi Dayananda Saraswati and a historical-theological reinterpretation resulting from European contact due to colonization. (There was a third, a spiritual interpretation represented by Sri Aurobindo that is not germane here.) >From the point of view of history, the European approach was highly significant. Sri Aurobindo expressed its impact with his usual clarity and brilliance:  

"It was the curiosity of a foreign culture that broke after many centuries the seal of final authoritativeness which Sayana had fixed on the ritualistic interpretation of the Vedas. The ancient Scripture was delivered over to a scholarship laborious, bold in speculation, ingenious in its flights of fancy, conscientious according to its own lights, but ill-fitted to understand the method of the old mystic poets; …"  

So it cannot be denied that the pioneers of the colonial age did make a contribution to the powerful revival of Indian scholarship that we see today, with its singular capacity for combining science and tradition, of which the book under review is a major example. But along with the much needed impulse that the West gave a moribund civilization, it brought also two fallacies into the field called ‘Indology  that continue to dog the it: Christian biases and the theological method of arguing from pre-determined conclusions, which its protagonists confused with the scientific method. This is proving to be its undoing, pushing Western Indology to the edge of extinction, more of which later. With this background we may next examine Talageri's contribution, which is based on a method of higher criticism uniquely suited to the task.  

Rigveda: structure and chronology  

It may be said without reservation that Talageri's book The Rigveda: A Historical Analysis is one of the most comprehensive studies of the Rigveda from a secular viewpoint written in our time. It forms a fitting start for a new approach to the study of the Rigveda as we enter a new century. As a result, his book is important both for its conclusions and its methodology. Recognizing this, what follows is a detailed summary and review.  

The book is organized into three sections. The first section consists of five chapters devoted to a systemic analysis of the Rigveda, laying the foundation for exploring the origin and the geographical spread of the Rigvedic clans and the seer families (Rishis). This is followed by Section II of two chapters, describing the activities of the Vedic people, especially their movements, which gave rise to the cultures of the Iranians and the Europeans. It is in some ways the most impressive part of the book — especially the chapter dealing with the Indo-Iranians — but likely also to be the most controversial. These two sections totaling seven chapters constitute the substance of the book.  

The third section, consisting of three Appendices, stands apart from the other two in being somewhat polemical in nature. In these the author gives examples that serve to show the deep state of decline that Western scholarship has fallen into. This in turn has made its members increasingly resort to unscrupulous tactics against their real or imagined enemies. While this makes for interesting reading, Talageri does not seem to recognize that this behavior is due to a sense of insecurity on the part of some scholars, hit with a brooding sense of the collapse of their discipline in the face of a ‘paradigm shift . The result is, they have neither the intellectual capacity nor the balanced state of mind needed to engage in healthy debate. This will become increasing apparent in the course of this review.  

The author appropriately begins with an analysis of the Anukramanis — or the Vedic indices left behind by the ancient writers, especially Shaunaka and his school. Particularly valuable is the list of Rishis or composers of the Rigvedic hymns preserved in them. This allows the author to arrive at a classification of the composers into clans of seer families, relating them to the various Mandalas and upa-mandalas. (The Rigveda is divided into ten Mandalas or books, with each containing several upa-mandalas or sub-books. An upa-mandala is a cluster of suktas or hymns attributed to a single composer. For example, hymns 1-11 of the first Mandala attributed to seer Vaishwamitra Madhucchanda make up the first upa-mandala of the first Mandala.) This is the basic framework that the author establishes in arriving at an internal chronology (or relative chronology) for the Mandalas and their composers. This is then correlated with the knowledge of history and geography contained in the hymns themselves, with far-reaching consequences, as we shall see later.  

In Chapter 2, the author goes on to establish the identity of the seer families with the help of apri-suktas or ‘family hymns  that distinguish each major family. It comes out that the major seer families are the Bharadwajas (Angirases), the Vasisthas and Vishwamitras, to be joined later by the Bhrugus and the Kashyapas. The Bhrugus and Angirases are the most ancient, going back according to the author to pre-Rigvedic times, but the heterodox Bhrugus were granted recognition as Vedic seers quite late. The Bhrugus are also among the most important people of ancient times who carried the seed of Vedic language and culture westward into Iran and even Europe.  

There were others, the Kanvas, the Gritsmadas and also those that claimed descent from more than one clan. These families did not work in isolation, and the later composers not infrequently refer to earlier families and even their compositions. In addition, the later seers often mention their ancestors — both actual and eponymous. All this proves invaluable in establishing the chronological relationships between the different Mandalas and their composers. An important consequence of this exercise is the recognition that Mandala X (or the last) is considerably later than the other nine. (This is clear also from the language, but it is reassuring to learn that Talageri's methodology leads to the same conclusion.)  

Of the ten Mandalas, II, III, IV, V, VI and VII are family Mandalas, i.e. each is composed entirely or for the most part by seers belonging to a single family. For example, Mandala III is by the Vishwamitra family, while Mandala VII is by the Vasisthas. The author observes that the "main criteria that will help us in establishing the chronological order of the Mandalas are: (1) The interrelationships among the composers of the hymns. (2) The internal references to composers in other Mandalas. (3) The internal references to kings and Rishis in the hymns" (p 37). This analysis allows the author to arrive at the following classification in chronological sequence:  

Early family Mandalas: VI, III, VII  

Later family Mandalas: IV, II, V  

All the family Mandalas and I: VI, III, VII, with I overlapping with IV, II, V  

The author then determines Mandala VIII to be later than V but partly overlapping it; and Mandala I, Mandala XI to be somewhat later, and finally, Mandala X to be considerably later than the first nine. He next relates the Mandalas to the dynasties and kings mentioned in the Rigveda. The most prominent of these are the kings of the Bharata dynasty (the Purus) who patronized the composers of the Rigvedic hymns. The most important king of the Bharata dynasty — after Bharata himself — was Sudas, the patron of both Vasistha and Vishvamitra and the hero of the Battle of Ten Kings. (Its eponymous founder Bharata gave India its name of Bharat and Bharatavarsha.) In addition to the Bharatas, the Rigveda mentions a few kings of the Trikshi dynasty, better known as the Ikshwakus. (Rama Dasharathi of Ayodhya belonged to this dynasty.) All this gives the author a firm handle to arrive at an internal chronology for the Rigveda. His observations on the subject make interesting reading (pp 77 - 78):  

"It is clear that the Rigveda was not composed in one sitting or a series of sittings, by a conference of Rishis: the text is clearly the result of many centuries of composition. The question is: just how many centuries?  

"The Western scholars measure the periods of the various Mandalas in decades, while some Indian scholars go to the other extreme and measure them in terms of millenniums and decamillenniums [10,000 years].  

"A more rational, but still conservative, estimate would be as follows:  

"1. There should be, at a very conservative estimate, a minimum of at least six centuries between the completion of the first nine Mandalas of the Rigveda and the completion of the tenth.  

"2. The period of the Late Mandalas and upa-mandalas (V, VIII, IX and the corresponding parts of Mandala I) and the gap which must have separated them from the period of the Late Mandalas, should comprise a minimum of three to four centuries.  

"3. The period of the Middle Mandalas and upa-mandalas (IV, II, and the corresponding parts of Mandala I) and the gap which must have separated them from the period of the Late Mandalas, should likewise comprise a minimum of another three to four centuries.  

"4. The period of Mandalas III and VII and the early upa-mandalas of Mandala I, beginning around the period of Sudas, should comprise at least two centuries.  

"5. The period of Mandala VI, from its beginning in the remote past and covering its period of composition right upto the time of Sudas, must again cover a minimum of at least six centuries.  

"Thus, by a conservative estimate, the total period of composition of the Rigveda must have covered a period of at least two millenniums."  

This, as the author observes, is a conservative estimate. The question then is of absolute chronology: can we place limits in terms of actual dates? This is a question that Talageri does not address himself to, but we are now in a position to make an estimate, especially following Jha & rsquo;s decipherment of the Indus script. The decipherment and the readings emphatically demonstrate that the Harappan Civilization (c. 3100 - 1900 BC) is post-Rigvedic, and overlaps substantially with the Sutra period. The last historical figures mentioned in the Rigveda are the brothers Shantanu and Devapi, who came three generations before the Mahabharata War, which may now be placed in the Early Harappan period (c. 3100 BC). (Forget the 1400 BC for the War, it has no scientific or literary support. Much of North India was still reeling under the impact of a massive drought, and could not have supported the society and the numerous kingdoms described in the Mahabharata.) Adding a minimum of two thousand years takes the early parts of the Rigveda to 5000 BC and beyond, which, by the author's reckoning must be deemed conservative.  

This agrees substantially with the dates reached by David Frawley and this reviewer in Vedic Aryans and the Origins of Civilization. There are a few interesting consequences. First, this places Mandhata and his campaign against the Druhyus, resulting in their northward migration in the 6^th - 5^th millenniums (conservative). Next the traditional date of Rama Dasharathi (c. 4300 BC) becomes entirely plausible, just like the traditional date of the Mahabharata War (c. 3100 BC). This suggests that one should not be too hasty in dismissing traditional dates.  

One other point is worth mentioning though it is unrelated to the book under review. In May 1999, Richard Meadow of the Peabody Museum at Harvard announced the discovery of a piece of pottery at the earliest level of Harappa, which he claimed to be the ‘World s Oldest Writing . The date claimed for it was 3300 - 3500 BC. I was able to identify the writing as a precursor to the Harappan script — whose existence I had anticipated — which allowed me to decipher it as ilavartate vara. This is related to the famous Rigvedic mantra III.23.4. This would be a chronological marker of the first importance, giving a lower limit for the third Mandala. But soon after my decipherment was announced, the person who claimed it to be the ‘World's Oldest Writing  issued a ‘clarification , completely changing the story, throwing both the data and the date into confusion. It seems that some ‘scholars  will stop at nothing to preserve the current dogma of the Aryan invasion in 1500 BC. (For details see Appendix on Pre-Harappan Writing in The Deciphered Indus Script by Jha and Rajaram.)  

The author then goes on to identify the Purus as the Vedic Aryans. It is certainly true that the Purus were major patrons of the Vedic Rishis, but I feel that this identification is too restrictive. I mention this because in Section 3, he goes so far as to question that the Harappan Civilization was Vedic at all, suggesting that it was closer to that of the Anus. (This claim is not supported by our decipherment, which Talageri had not seen when he wrote the book, but let that be. Our reading is that Vedic India was a pluralistic civilization that included sects like Shaiva Agamas.) But Talageri would exclude all non-Purus from the Vedic fold, and all those who deviated from the strict orthodoxy of the Puru priests as non-Vedic. This, though is a minor point, I find somewhat restrictive. His findings about the Dasas and the Dasyus is enlightening: the former refers to non-Puru tribes, while the latter represent the priesthood outside the strict orthodoxy of the Puru priesthood. One is not surprised to learn that the Dasyus — the heterodox priesthood — are at the receiving end of much greater hostility than the Dasas.  

Geography and migrations  

Having established an internal chronological order for the Mandalas and the upa-mandalas of the Rigveda, the author examines the text for geographical references. The result can be summarized as follows: the oldest part of the Rigveda exhibits a geographical knowledge mainly to the region east of the Sarasvati river, generally corresponding to the present states of Haryana and UP (Uttar Pradesh). As one moves to the later Mandalas, following the chronological sequence established earlier, there is a corresponding expansion of the geographical horizon westward. This means: the movement of the Vedic Aryans was from the region east of the Sarasvati to the Punjab and Afghanistan in the West — the exact reverse of the widely held view of scholars for over a century. The evidence, based mainly on the distribution of the rivers of North India and the Vedic and Avestan records is simply overwhelming. This allows Talageri to show India as the original homeland of the Iranians. It may be summarized as follows.  

The Avesta is essentially the work of the Bhrugu seers. They along with the Angirases are the most ancient of the seers that may go back to pre-Rigvedic periods, but through much of the Rigveda the Bhrugus are treated as outsiders. The Bhrugus introduced fire worship and also Soma, both Western practices according to Talageri. They were also an adventurous people, exploring beyond the boundaries of India, reaching as far as Anatolia where they came to be known as Phrygians. Ushana is one of their most celebrated seers, later recognized as the first among Kavis. A particular branch of them known as the Spitamas join the Asuras (Iranian Ahuras) as priests. The situation is complex and the evidence detailed, which the author summarizes as follows:  

"Hence it is not the Bhrugus or the Atharvanas as a whole who are the protagonists of the priests of the Avesta, it is only the Spitama branch of the Atharvans. Hence, also, the name of the Good Spirit, opposed to the Bad Spirit Angra Mainyu (a name clearly derived from the name of the Angirases), is a Spenta Mainyu (a name derived from the name of the Spitamas)." (p 179)  

The author further observes: "The picture that emerges from the whole discussion is clear: (a) The Angirases were the priests of the Vedic Aryans, and the Bhrugus were the priests of the Iranians. (b) There was a period of acute hostility between the Vedic Aryans and the Iranians, which left its mark on the myths and traditions of the two peoples." [This is preserved in the inversion of the relationships between the Devas and the Asuras in the Iranian tradition.]  

What is important is that we have fairly detailed records of the events that drove the Iranians out of the Punjab into Iran. As far as the progress of the Iranians is concerned, Talgeri gives the following scenario: in the Pre-Avestan period they were located in Punjab and southern Afghanistan; in the Early- and the Late Avestan period, they were in the Punjab, Afghanistan, Central Asia and northeastern Iran; finally, in the Post Avestan period they were in Afghanistan, Central Asia and Iran.  

Two crucial events contributed to the movement of the Iranians from the Punjab to the west. The first was the Battle of Ten Kings, in which the Bharata king Sudas drove the confederation led by the Druhyus beyond the Punjab. The people who became the Iranians were now settled in Afghanistan. For a while the two people — the Vedic Aryans in the east and the Iranians in Afghanistan — lived as peaceful neighbors. This was soon overtaken by a breakout hostilities in Afghanistan. As the author puts it: "The major historical event of the period [i.e., post Sudas] is the great battle which took place between a section of the Vedic Aryans (by Rijrashva and the descendents of Sudas) on the one hand, and the Iranians (led by Zarathushtra and Vishtaspa)." (p 215)  

This finds mention in the Avesta also where Rijrashva is called "Araejataspa or Arjaspa who is referred to in the Avesta as the main enemy of Vishtaspa and his brothers… Later Iranian tradition (as in the Shahname) goes so far as to hold Zarathushtra himself to have been killed by Arjaspa." (p 216) From this and much other evidence, Talageri convincingly demonstrates that it is not "Central Asia, but India, which is the original area from which Iranians migrated to their later historical habitats." A truly impressive tour de force.  

The author next sets forth his evidence to show that the Indo-Europeans, i.e, the speakers of European languages related to Sanskrit, must also have originated in India. The arguments are more expansive and situation somewhat more complex than in the Indo-Iranian case. Here also there were two major campaigns that spurred the migrations. The first was a campaign against the Druhyus by the Ikshwaku king Mandhata, about a thousand years before Sudas and his Battle of Ten Kings. This led to a migration of ‘hundreds of sons of kings  who went north into the Mleccha country and established kingdoms there. The most important of the tribes on this northern migratory route, which took them eventually into Europe, were the Druhyus. The Battle of Ten Kings a thousand years later made its contribution leading to the establishment of Bhrugus (Phrygians) in Anatolia and the Alinas (Hellenes) in Greece. Talageri s scenario is not notably different from the one given in his earlier book, but is buttressed by substantially more research.  

Technically, here is the situation faced by advocates of the Aryan invasion. There is no archaeological evidence for the invasion while even hard evidence for a migration out of India is beginning to appear. To take an example, a Celtic artifact known as the Gundestrup Cauldron (c. 150 BC) found in the Danish bogs reproduces the motif on the Pashupati seal from India, at least two thousand years earlier. Also, examples of Harappan writing are being found in West Asia, a couple of which Jha and this writer have deciphered. (See The Deciphered Indus Script, Chapter 10.) There must surely be others once we begin to look at ancient artifacts with a more open mind. In the face of all this, it is not possible to keep up the pretense of the invasion for much longer. The result is a bizarre set of explanations:  

"The linguistic answer to this total lack of archaeological evidence of any Aryan influx into India in the second millennium BC, is to ‘postulate more gradual and complex phenomenon ." (p 242) In other words, an invisible invasion that leaves no archaeological traces, or if it does, leaves one indicating a movement in the opposite direction — like a stealth aircraft that moves completely unseen by radar, only more deceptive. (In the face of such semantic acrobatics, how can Talageri admonish the critics of linguistics for not accepting it as a ‘science ?)  

But here is something interesting: recent genetic studies have ruled out any possibility of a large-scale movement into India from West Eurasia 3000 - 4000 years ago. Further, the presence of the West Eurasian strain among the so-called Aryans and Dravidians is at the same insignificant level. The last major influx according to genetic evidence is more than 50,000 years ago. This means that any physical variation within the Indian population is due to natural selection. All this was not known when Talgeri completed his book, but it supports his contention of no invasion into India.  

What about a reverse movement, out of India into Europe? If Sanskrit was not brought into India, the only explanation for its influence on European languages is that it went from India to Europe. We then have some technical evidence like the Gundestrup Cauldron in Europe and Indus writing in West Asia. Jha and I have shown traces of Indian influence on West Asiatic scripts like Aramaic, Himyaretic and Phoenician. (The Indus script is at least a thousand years older than West Asiatic scripts, so the influence could only be from India westward.) Also, there have been suggestions of a discontinuity in skeletal types in the 5^th - 4^th millennium BC — or close to the Battle of Ten Kings. Rather weak as evidence, but suggestive.  

All this provides compelling evidence that the homeland of Indo-Europeans was India.  

Linguistics and polemics  

This takes us to the third section consisting of three Appendices. The final Appendix is on a mystical interpretation of the well-known Sarama and Panis episode, which the author shows to have much in common with several myths in Teutonic and Greek mythology. The other two relate to the author s survey of the evolution of the field and its current state. The first Appendix titled ‘Misrepresentations of Rigvedic History  presents his views on different reactions to the Aryan Invasion Theory, especially on the part of Indian scholars. The second examines the current state of Western Vedic scholarship and its reaction to the challenge posed by modern, especially Indian scholarship. In the first Appendix, the author appeals to the critics of linguistics (like this reviewer) to accept its claims (as a science) and formulate arguments on that basis. With this I have a serious problem on both scientific and polemical grounds, which I should perhaps state in view of the enormous amount of controversy that it has given rise to.  

The first point to note is that the claims for linguistics as a science are made by scholars who are not for the most part scientists. Next, attacks on those (like this reviewer) who question its claims tend to be less than scientific, let alone objective. On this point, I draw attention to Bernard Sergent s ‘criticism  of my views cited by Talageri on 426-7 to get an idea of the situation. (Koenraad Elst, in the book given in the references has a much more detailed discussion, including the remarks of one Robert Zydenbos.) Such tactics are unlikely to affect my standing as a scientist, but also not likely to help the likes of Sergent and Zydenbos gain credibility in scientific circles for their subject. More seriously, I would like to highlight what I see as a fundamental misconception prevailing among non-scientists with regard to science and the scientific method.  

What distinguishes a subject as a science is the method, not the data, the symbols or the facts though they are all important. In science, when a new result arrives posing a challenge to an established theory, it may have to be given up. There are times when a single contradictory piece of data is sufficient to overthrow an established theory. This is what happened with the Michelson-Morley experiment, which overthrew the Newtonian model and led to Einstein s Theory of Relativity. (This is what should have happened to the Aryan Invasion Theory also when the Harappan Civilization was discovered, but the invasionists served up their old wine in a new bottle.) Without a standardized method that allows for checking internal consistency — like the correctness of a mathematical proof — a subject cannot be considered a science. Not all sciences are as exact as mathematics or physics, but there has to be a scientific method that leads to similar results when applied by different people. This is called repeatability.  

Linguistics seems to fail both these tests. There appears to be no agreement on the methodology that allows checking for internal consistency; second, different people using the same ‘science  arrive at widely divergent conclusions. (If there were such consistency, Talageri's previous book would not have been so viciously attacked by linguists, while being welcomed by non-linguists.) This is not the full story. As the author himself records, quoting Edwin Bryant (p 301): the linguists agree on only one thing, that the "Aryans ‘must have  invaded India…." Otherwise, "they are not internally consistent…" So there is no agreement on anything, but when it comes to ancient India, there is a magical consensus that the Aryans ‘must have  invaded India. This is not science but theology. Replace ‘Aryans invaded India in 1500 BC' with ‘Salvation only through faith in Jesus,' and you get Christian theology. As I pointed out early in the review, the pioneer Indologists confused theological arguments with the scientific method. The confusion still prevails.  

How then are we to explain the undeniable success of Talageri who seems to swear by linguistics as a science? The answer is simple: it owes nothing to linguistics and everything to his detailed analysis of the primary texts — or what I have called ‘higher criticism'. It was applied to the Puranas in his previous book, to the Rigveda in the present. Take away linguistic terms like ‘isoglosses', ‘Centum and Satem' and the book still stands without loss. On the other hand, take away his higher criticism while retaining the linguistic jargon and you are left with a shapeless mass — of ‘sound and fury signifying nothing'. I might also point out that the fiercest attacks on his book are likely to come from the linguists themselves. These will be directed not at his methodology — which is probably beyond them — but his conclusion. This is exactly how a religious fanatic reacts to a heretical doctrine. Just wait and watch.  

There is another point that Talageri makes that should be treated with reserve. He feels that despite the missionary and political motives that were behind much of the ‘research' of many scholars, we have to see their work mainly as honest search for truth. No one can say that their work should all be dismissed, but how does one draw a line that separates their honest effort from motivated scholarship? When Max Muller writes his wife in private that the object of his Vedic studies was to uproot Hinduism; when Monier-Williams tells a Christian missionary audience that his dictionary was written so that they could storm the fortress of Brahmanism and achieve a victory that must be both "complete and signal"; when H.H. Wilson writes that his set of essays were written (with the help of Hindu Pandits) to train candidates who could best refute Hinduism; when Robert Caldwell admonishes a critic of his linguistic theory that it was "not only of considerable moment from a philological point of view but of vast moral and political importance"; and when W.W. Hunter says that scholarship is "warmed with the holy flame of Christian zeal", it is only prudent to approach them with more than a degree of skepticism.  

The thrust of Appendix 1 is a critique of previous approaches to Rigvedic history. It is somewhat subjective and takes previous investigators to task for arguing too much from beliefs and paying insufficient attention to what the Rigveda itself has to say. Some of his points are well made, but one should always make concessions to the time and place in which a theory evolves. This holds as much for colonial-missionary scholars like Max Muller as for nationalist scholars like Tilak and Vivekananda. None of us can escape the influence of our environment. It adds little to the main contribution of the work, Rigvedic history, which is what the reader is likely to be interested in. When we come to Appendix 2, however, it is a different story: it gives a vivid picture of the sorry state of Western Vedic scholarship today, and the desperate methods that some are using to safeguard what they see as their preserve. The author uses Michael Witzel as an example, but several others fit the bill. This is a topic worth noting, for in the coming years, the battle is likely to get fierce and the rhetoric increasingly shrill.  

To get some idea of the level to which academic ‘debate' has descended, here is how one Victor Mair introduced his paper, describing his adversaries as "extremists, chauvinists, and other types of deranged — possibly dangerous — persons… nationalists and racists of various stripes; kooks and crazies who attribute the rise of Indo-Europeans to extra-territorial visitations, etc." (p 233) He then goes on to heap praise on himself and his approach by claiming that his maps (among other things) are "intended isochronously to take into account the following kinds of evidence: linguistic, historical, archaeological, technological, cultural, ethnological, geographical, climatological, chronological, genetic-morphological… I have also endeavored to take into consideration types of data which subsume to bridge two or more basic categories of evidence (eg. glotto-chronology, dendrochronology and linguistic paleontology)." (p 234)  

This is outrageous nonsense - actually a rather clever spoof of the pretensions of the ‘scholars' that draws its inspiration from the speech of Polonius in Shakespeare's Hamlet:  

"The best actors in the world, either for tragedy, comedy, history, pastoral, pastoral-comical, historical-pastoral, tragical-historical, tragical-comical-historical-pastoral, scene individable, or poem unlimited: Seneca cannot be too heavy nor Plautus too light. For the law of writ and liberty, these are the only men." (Act II, Scene 2)  

It is a measure of the pedantic irrelevance to which the field has sunk that this parody by Mair was included as a research contribution in a volume entitled The Bronze Age and Early Iron Age Peoples of Eastern Asia, published by The University of Pennsylvania Museum, edited by Victor Mair himself! Did the other contributors not see that they were being ridiculed?  

This episode is a fair indicator of what lies in store for Western scholars. They may lack any sense of humor, but they do have an idea of their own looming irrelevance. Here is the problem. Research papers and monographs written by the likes of Michael Witzel (Talageri's example of a Western scholar) are hardly read at all. There is great public and academic interest in new discoveries in the field — like the decipherment of the Indus script and Talageri's own reconstruction — but no one in India gives a damn about what Witzel and most of his Western colleagues have to say about India. In the West, especially in America, there is even less interest. This is not helped by the fact that their writings are unreadable. Books and articles of the new school of Indian and Western scholars like David Frawley, Talageri, this reviewer and others are read by thousand and sometimes tens of thousands, while Witzel and others like him may not have a dozen readers other than their own hapless students. And more and more students are seeing through their scholarly smokescreen. It is only a matter of time before university administrators begin to see that they are supporting white elephants, at a time of shrinking budgets.  

In this climate of insecurity, scientific rigor and academic fairness are luxuries that a sinking establishment can ill afford. Debate is not something they look forward to. More than twenty years ago, Seidenberg complained that their ‘refutations' were only ‘haughty dismissals'. As they and their field slip further into the abyss, haughty dismissals are giving way to vicious personal attacks. I find it necessary to mention this because Talageri does not seem to be fully aware of the academic climate in the West. (I spent more than twenty years at American universities as a faculty member and administrator, where I had to deal with the likes of Talageri's critics on a regular basis. Less substantial the work, the greater were the demands.)  

How does one deal with such adversaries who use haughty dismissals and smear tactics to forestall debate? My suggestion is to ignore them. Nothing is gained by trying to refute them over and over again, given their present state of mind. It is better to pursue one's own program of research instead of trying to convert fundamentalists. It is impossible to fool all the people all the time, even university administrators. I am not suggesting that one should avoid debate, but only that both sides have the responsibility to follow some ground rules. One cannot counter ‘haughty dismissals' and smear campaigns with facts and logic. Ignore people who indulge in such tactics.  

Conclusion  

This brings me to the end of the review. It is obviously an important work, but not the last word on the subject. There is one major lacuna that I should mention — the maritime nature of the society described in the Rigveda. The oceanic symbolism is among the most commonly occurring poetic devices. Even the process of creation is visualized in terms of the ocean. There are prayers for the safety of ships and sailors. Mandala VII is particularly rich in oceanic references. This needs to be explored further. (The pervasive oceanic symbolism shows also how incongruous it is to locate the Rigvedic people in land-locked Afghanistan as Rajesh Kochhar has tried to do in his recent book Vedic People: Their History and Geography. This can be compared to writing a history of Europe, identifying Switzerland as a great naval power. But Kochhar seems to have a great attachment to Afghanistan. He has placed Rama, Ayodhya, Sarasvati River, and now the Rigveda in that country.)  

The book deals with a subject that is necessarily complex, but its reading facilitated by careful organization and logical presentation. Mr. Talageri writes well, in a language that is both clear and direct. The book is superbly produced with a truly comprehensive index, which seems to be a distinguishing mark of Aditya Prakashan as an academic publisher. Considering the quality of the work the price is by no means unreasonable. The editing is first rate with no errors of any consequence. On page 4, the attribution of I.12 to the Vishvamitras is wrong, it should be to Medhatiti Kanva. This gives eighteen hymns I.1-11 and I. 24-30 for the Vishvamitras — for Madhucchandas and Shunashepha respectively. In the chart on page 104, there appears to be a printing error, taking the bar for Mandala VII to Vitasta instead of stopping at Asikni. These are minor lapses and do not affect the conclusions in any way.  

All in all The Rigveda: A Historical Analysis by Shrikant Talageri is a major work that settles many old questions while opening new horizons for research. It is a must for every serious student of history.  

Elst, Koenraad (1999). Update on the Aryan Invasion Debate. New Delhi: Aditya Prakashan.  

Jha, N. and N.S. Rajaram (2000). The Deciphered Indus Script: Methodology, readings, interpretations.  

New Delhi: Aditya Prakashan.  

Rajaram, N.S. and David Frawley (1997). Vedic Aryans and the Origins of Civilization: A literary and  

scientific perspective, 2^nd edition. New Delhi: Voice of India.  

Talageri, Shrikant (1993). Aryan Invasion Theory: A reappraisal. New Delhi: Aditya Prakashan.