ossile Irnin rigins for the Śākys nd Aspets of Buddhism
Jayarava Attwood
jyrv@gmil.om
is rtil xplors th plusiility o ihl itzl’s spultion tht th
Śāky tri might hv Irnin origins, or t lst Irnin onntions. Cirumstntil vin suggsts tht is ssoit with Irn n orostrinism ppr in north-st Ini, spilly mongst th śramana
. groups,
n in prtiulr mongst Buhists, ut not in th Brhmnil ultur.
hrs Buhism is rquntly portry s rspons to Brhmnism,
or, spilly y Buhists, s historil, itzl’s suggstion givs us nw
vnu or xploring th history o is in Buhism. is ssy ttmpts
to show tht, t th vry lst, possil onntions with Irn srv mor
ttntion rom sholrs o th history o is in Ini n spilly Buhism.
Introdution
In
Hrvr Inologist ihl itzl ommnt, on th Ino-Eursin
srh onlin orum, tht w shoul trt th Śākys s n rly inursion o
ythins (known in nskrit s Śk, n in Irnin s k) who rought with
thm mny is rlt to Irnin ultur n/or orostrin rligion.
H
h m th sm suggstion rlir on th IDLG list (itzl
), n
h in t pulish som o th vin or this proposition in itzl (
,
I’m grtul to rossor ihl itzl or gnrously orrsponing with m n llowing
m to stl his i. H si “xpt rsistn”. nks lso to rrs o rlir rs who hlp
m to improv it onsirly n nourg m to pursu th i in th o rsistn.
.
( ):
–
.©
Jyrv Attwood
–
,
). o t, howvr, h hs not givn this i ull trtmnt whih
woul llow us to rlly ssss its mrits.
In his Ino-Eursinsrh post itzl inti s numr o turs o
th Śākys whih ppr to support th inti tion, or xmpl: tris suh s
th Śākys r lrgly snt rom th Vi litrtur n, whr thy r noti,
thir ustoms r “strng”, ut thy r t th orront in Buhist txts, suggsting lt migrtion into th Bihr rgion; th nm Śāky pprs to ognt
with Śk; th xistn o uril prtis in gh tht r similr to thos
in Cntrl Asi; inst mrrigs; n post-mortm jugmnt o tions o th
oy, sph n min tri. Drwing on rsrh rom vrity o isiplins
inluing philology, historil linguistis n rhology s wll s limt sin n gntis, this rtil onsirs whthr h tur inti y itzl
oul hv om rom Irn n thn xmins th possil rout or trnsmission
rom Irn to Ini. In onlusion I xplor wht signi n this might hv or
our unrstning o th history o isprtiulrly Buhist isin Ini.
iling rrige
In svrl pls, prtiulrly th Ambat. tha
. Sutta (D.i. ) n its rvā ommntry, th prognitors o th Śākys r rlt to King kkāk: “ Śākyns
rgr King kkāk s thir nstor” (lsh
:
). In th Ambat. tha
. Sutta
th king nishs his lr rothrs rom his kingom n thy mk thir hom
on th slops o th Himlys. But thy n n no on suitl to mrry, so
thy tk thir own sistrs s wivs, n ths instuous rltionships giv ris
to th Śākys. An it is this siling mrrig tht itzl inti s s n Irnin
trit.
āli nm kkāk is usully inti with th nskrit Iksvāku,
Kos.
ln king. I hv not n l to tr th originl inti tion o kkāk n
Iksvāku,
ut th Mahāvastu (v) sustituts Iksvāku
whr th āli hs kkāk
.
.
(.g. v . ). As Jons sys, “ story hr givn, with som iffrns in
nomnltur, ollows prtty losly tht in th āli txts” (
:
, n. ). Howvr, in v th rothrs mrry hl-sistr orn o iffrnt mothr. Gigr’s
Pāli Grammar points out tht th nms kkāk n Iksvāku
r not simpl n.
itzl (prsonl ommunition,
) sys tht th i gos k t lst to Jrl Chrpntir
in th
s, n prhps vn rlir.
itzl lso mntions som othr turs, ut I hv not n l to ollow ths up.
Jons nots this in his trnsltion long with not on th nskrit txt (
:
).
–
logus: “kkāk] is in t riv rom kkāk (*ukkhu si-orm o ucchu).
nlogil in un o kkāmukh lso h som fft” (
: ; § , n. ).
ot tht . ukkā = kt. ulkā rrn, torh’ (ognt with volcano). nskrit
iksu
. = āli ucchu n mns sugrn’. āli ommntry on th Ambat. tha
.
Sutta rivs th nm kkāk rom ukkā, sying tht whn h spok light m
rom his mouth lik torh (ukkā yiva). (DA i. ). thr thn invnt hypothtil intrmiry (viz. *ukkhu) it woul mor strightorwr to tk
okkāka t vlu s sonry nominl rivtiv: ukkā + -ka (with vrddhi);
.
n onsir tht v substitutes th nm Iksvāku
or kkāk rthr thn trans.
lating it. t is to sy tht th nms r not nlogus ut rr to two iffrnt
popl; n tht y th tim n pl o th omposition o v th Śākys wr
mor losly ssimilt to Kosl n it ws politi to intiy with Kosln
nstor. I suggst tht th onntion with Iksvāku
ws invnt or prstig,
.
n is not oun in th āli txts.
Givn th prjui ginst inst in ltr Buhist writing (ilk
:
–
), it is rmrkl tht this til o th Śākys rising rom n inst union ws
prsrv. It is n xmpl o wht w stmnt sholrs ll th Principle of
Embarrassment: “hn n uthor rvls, in th ours o isussion, somthing tht is quit un ttring to th group or th position tht h or sh rprsnts, thr is high gr o proility tht th sttmnt hs sis in t”
(ttir
: ).
itzl suggsts tht this story o inst mrrigs r ts mmory o Irn.
Jonthn ilk on rms tht this ws in n Irnin ustom: “thr is goo
vin or this prti ll xv aētuuadaϑa, so-ll nxt-o-kin or los-kin
mrrig” (ilk
:
). xtnt o this prti or th ssnin prio is unlr, n muh t y sholrs o orostrinism n Irnin history. By th Common Er Buhists wr onmning Irnins or this prti
in thir txts, .g. in th Dharmarucy-avadāna n th Abhidharmakośabhāsya;
.
n similr onmntions wr m y thir Grk nighours n y th Chins t ltr t (ilk
:
). ot tht in Hrootus (iv. – ) story o
th ouning o th ythins lso involvs youngr rothr tking th thron
in prn o his lr rothrs, though it os not involv n inst mrrig
(tr l
:
– ).
tassa kira rañño kathanakāle ukkā viya mukhato pabhā niccharati, tasmā tam
. ‘‘okkāko’’ti
sañjānimsūti
(DA . )
.
–
All this is to tk th origin story o th Śākys s history. In osmogoni myth
inst is quit ommon. For xmpl, in B . ātman in th liknss o mn
(purusa)
. rliss h is lon n splits into husn n wi. hn h ttmpts
to hv sx with hr, sh s us o th inst too. In, whr thr is
singl prognitor or oupl thn inst o thir hilrn is invitl. Christin
myth glosss ovr th t tht th hilrn o Am n Ev must hv ommitt
inst in orr to popult th rth. Howvr, th story in th Ambat. tha
. Sutta
osn’t r lik rtion myth.
In th vrsion o th Śāky origin story ror in th Sumaṅgalavilāsinī
(th rvāin ommntry on th Dīgh ikāy), thr is som vin tht
ross-ousin mrrig ourr in th Śāky n Koliy lns (Emnu
:
). In ition, thr r xtnsiv gnlogis in th Mahāvamsa
. tht show
ross-ousin mrrigs (rutmn
:
– ). A ross-ousin mrrig is
on in whih oy woul mrry his mothr’s rothr’s ughtr, or girl woul
mrry hr thr’s sistr’s son. is is on o th prrr mths in outh Ini
mongst th Drviin-spking popls. Goo (
) hs n ritil o th
i tht ross-ousin mrrig is th only, or most prrr, Drviin kin rltionship, n shows tht othr mrrig mths r m. B tht s it my,
ross-ousin mrrig is tur o Drviin kinship, n th Brhmnil lw
ooks (th Dharmasūtras) mk it lr tht ousin mrrig is orin or
Arys. (pr
:
).
prption thn is tht i th Buh’s mily prtis ross-ousin mrrig, thy nnot hv n Arys, n wr likly Drviins. i sms
to go k t lst to
, whn A.. Hort tri to us osrvtions rom th
gnlogis o Śākys n Koliys to xplin th rltionship twn th Buh
n Dvtt (Emnu
:
). Alry in
Emnu sw th min
w in this rsoning: th rlist sours w hv or ross-ousin mrrig r
rvā ommntril txts writtn in th th ntury
in ri Lnk. o
grt xtnt thy r t th soity o th ntury ri Lnk. Furthrmor, thr
is no orroorting vin rom th suttas or Vinaya tht ross-ousin mrrig
took pl t ll, n vry littl gnlogil inormtion.
Cross-ousin mrrig is not unknown in pl. Howvr it sms unlikly tht prsnt y ross-ousin mrrig hs ny ring on th tim o th
Buh. th groups whih prti ross-ousin mrrig tht I oul lo. y (
:
ff.), who points out inonsistnis in th portryl o Dvtt.
y thnks to ihr Gomrih or pointing this out.
–
t, th Bhlr mov to th r wst o pl rom jsthn in th th ntury (Cmron
); whil th mng spk ito-Burmn lngug n
origint rom it (Frik
;
). Furthr in th s o th Bhlr th
option o ross-ousin mrrig is rlt to th nssity or in-st mrrig
within vry smll popultion.
ovious onlusion, thn, is tht whn th uthors o th Mahāvamsa,
.
n th ommntris upon whih th Sumaṅgalavilāsinī ws s, st own to
ompos gnlogy or th Buh thy us milir gurs rom th ol txts,
ut rrng thm in wy whih sm nturl to thm: in othr wors, thy
unslonsiously moll th Buh’s mily on thir own.
Buril
itzl (
) nots tht Buhist stūpas “r similr to th kurgan typ grv
mouns o outhrn ussi n Cntrl Asi.” Kurgan is ussin wor mning rrow’, n thy r sri s “tumuli or roun uril mounts” (rnr
:
). Kurgan mouns gin to ot th stpps s rly s th h millnnium
n ontinu into mivl tims. rly mouns ontin th rst
whl wgons oun in this rgion (. thir millnnium
) n vin o
omstit horss, long with mny othr rtts. rquny o mouns
in tim sms to oini with pks in nomi ttl-hring popls, n on
o ths pk prios ws th rly Iron Ag (.
–
) (orgunov
& Khokhlov
). kurgan mouns, howvr, r burial mouns, n th
oupnts wr not rmt.
Annual Report of the Architectural Survey of India
– nots tht th
rlist orm o stūpa, possily pr-Buhist, suh s thos oun in Luriy n
khri in Bihr, sm to hv onsist o rth pil up roun ntrl woon
pillr (in rzyluski
:
– ). ot tht this kin o stūpa is not intil to
th kurgan, n pprs to similr only in ing roun uril moun.
s rly stūpas wr iffrnt rom th vrious typs o Vi monumnts
or th ll śmaśāna (. Bkkr
). Śatapatha Brāhmana
. (ŚB
. . . ) onsir roun śmaśāna to ssoit with asuras (“mons”) s
ginst th orthoox squr mmorils o Brhmins (itzl
:
). till,
thy wr not ssoit with ithr rlir Inin, or Vi ultur. Stūpas wr
In ltr nskrit this is th norml wor or hrnl groun, whr orpss wr rmt or
simply non.
–
lort ovr tim, ut rtin th roun shp o th moun within thir
ovrll pln. Jn rzyluski spult tht th lort stūpas o th n ntury
oini with th rrivl o Cntrl Asins in Ini, on th sis o thir
similrity with kurgans (
:
– ).
vrl rly th ntury uthors noti th similrity o stūpas n kurgan
mouns, .g. H.G. wlinson: “...rli-worship, n its onomitnt th stūpa, r
quit un-Inin. Gutm long to th ky ln: wr thy n rly offshoot
o th ks, th or yths, who, s w know, ollow th Aryns rom
tim to tim into Ini in sussiv wvs? wor stūpa signi s rrow,’
or tumulus,’ nskrit nm or ythin ojt ... th] nhi tup, with its
lortly rv ston riling, is vry proly th linl snnt o th ru
rthn moun ovring th toms o th ythin hiins on th Cntrl Asi
stpps....” (
:
– ). or rntly irt onntion twn th kurgan
n stūpa hs n propos y Krl rnr (
,
).
is is not our strongst vin. suggstion o onntion pprs to
rst solly on th similrity o shp, whih oul sily hv volv y hn.
An not tht th kurgan typilly ontin ois, not shs. t th ŚB sw
th stūpa s moni only tlls us tht it ws not sntion y Lt Vi soity, n this lvs opn mny possiilitis. lotion o primitiv mouns in
Bihr, n not lswhr, might onsistnt with th lt migrtion o Śākys.
Howvr, i this wr th s w woul xpt to n suh mouns in jsthn
rom n rlir prio. in th rly Bihr mouns r simpl onstrutions o
pil-up rth, prhps thy i not surviv; or prhps thy i, ut hv not
n oun, us rhology in Ini is r rom omprhnsiv.
Body, peeh nd ind
In hr
ssy Man as Willer, Crolin hys Dvis notis tht th ivision o th prson into oy, sph n min (kāya, vāca, citta) or morl pur lso rzyluski (
,
), who its svrl mor xmpls, though som o ths uthors
r ngtivly link to rintlism.
hys Dvis only mntions th onntion in pssing, howvr, n prsnts it s n stlish t without rrns or xmpls. osrvtion os not our in hys Dvis (
),
ut it ws inlu whn th ook ws sustntilly rvis (
:
). osrvtion lso pprs in hys Dvis (
). I n n no rrn rlir thn hys Dvis (
). i
sms to origint with hr.
–
poss, so ntrl to Buhist morlity is lso importnt in orostrinism.
trihumata, hūxta n hvaršta in Avstn (i.. goo thought, goo sph n
goo s)is si to “npsult th thil gols o orostrinism” (Boy
), n ours in th rlist Irnin txts, suh s th Avesta n th Yasna
Haptaŋhāiti. In th lttr, whih my wll hv n ompos y orostr,
w n th ollowing:
“ r thos who wlom th goo thoughts, goo wors, n
goo ts whih, hr n lswhr, r n hv n rliz.
r not thos who nigrt goo (things).” (Boy
)
is morl outlook oms ntrl in orostrinism, n is still importnt s
ous n uniying tor or orostrins toy. hys Dvis nots tht th
tri is not oun in othr rly Inin txts. Jn Gon’s survy Triads in the
Vedas os not mntion this st in pr-Buhist txts, though h os n it in
th Manusmrti
. ( . ), whr it is rrr to s “tridan. da
. th throl ontrol
(ovr onsl)’, viz. ovr sph, thought, n oy” (Gon
:
).
I this is not Buhist orrowing rom orostrinism thn it is n xtrorinry oinin.
Krm nd the Aerlife
itzl lso nots tht th i o s ing wigh r th ws not Vi
onpt. “is ws rst n Egyptin, thn orostrin n Irnin onpt.
It is onnt with th i o prsonl rsponsiility or on’s tion (karma)”
(itzl
).
Egyptin orm o this i n oun in e Egyptian Book of the Dead.
hrt o Ani th sri, rntly s, is wigh in ln, with th
lwrprsnt y thr, or somtims th goss āton th othr si.
Ani is oun to rightous: “thr hth not n oun ny wiknss in him;
h hth not wst th offrings in th tmpls; h hth not on hrm y his
s; n h uttr no vil rports whil h ws upon rth” (Bug
:
).
y ttntion ws rwn to this onntion y tnprh in ommnt on my log (http://
jyrv.logspot.om Jun
). H point to mntion o it in nghrkshit (
: –
). nghrkshit rlls notiing th onntion whil ring th orostrin Gathas. (rsonl Communition . . .)
quivlnt nskrit trms – sumata, sūkta n suvrata – xist, ut not s st, n not with
th morl implitions.
–
H is thn l into th prsn o siris (n oms on o th gos). ot his
tions r ivi into oily n spokn, ut not (yt) mntl. H Ani’s hrt
n hvy, i.. i h h not n rightous, h woul hv n givn ovr to
Āmmt, th vourr o th .
imilrly, in orostrinism th r jug on thir tions uring li:
“...th soul’s t pns solly on th sum o th iniviul’s thoughts,
wors, n ts, th goo ing wigh ginst th , so tht no
osrvns shoul vil it in ny wy.” (Boy
)
For orostrins, thror, on’s rli stintion pns on on’s tions in
li. hnilly non o th usul rits n rituls (.g. th śrāddha or unrl rits
o th Brhmins) oul o nything out it; howvr, “humn wknss (inluing th or o nturl fftions) n humn illogility nl rthustr’s]
ollowrs to mintin this otrin whil t th sm tim prorming mny rits
or th prt soul’s n t.” (Boy
).
Gnnth yskr (
) outlins how this typ o thinking rsults in
iurtion o th rli. Hvn n Hll r nssry onsquns o th
thiiztion o shtologis:
“r n no longr singl pl or thos who hv on goo
n thos who hv on . othrworl must minimlly split
into two, worl o rtriution (hll’) n worl o rwr (hvn’).”
(yskr
: )
Howvr, goo n n n in mny wys. In Ini th pross n
sn in th Brhadāra
nyaka
n Chāndogya Upanisads,
whih propos iffrnt
.
.
.
stintions or thos who know out th v rs (pañcāgni), thos who only
prtis th orinry Brhmnil rituls, n thos who o nithr (B . , . –
; . C . – ). r is no hll hr, though rirth s worm, inst or snk
might hv n hinting t vry unplsnt rli. In t th i o hll
pprs s i rom nowhr in Vi thought.
In Buhist shtology on’s rli stintion is link to on’s onut
(karma) o oy, sph n min. Krm n rirth r thiis, n th
rli oms vry lort, with v or six omins o rirth, n hvn
n hll suivi into mny lyrs.
. Brown (
), Bowitz (
), tusrg (
).
–
om Buhist txts o prsnt storis o jugmnt in th rli tht r
rminisnt o orostrinism, n vn o th Egyptin Book of the Dead. For
instn, th Devadūta Sutta ( iii.
) tlls how r th ing who hs
hv ly might rorn in hll (niraya); thr thy will siz y th
gurins o hll (nirayapālā), rgg or King m n ross-xmin
out thir vil onut o oy, sph n min. nl to ount or thmslvs, thy r thn onmn to horri torturs, whih r grphilly sri, n it is mphsis tht “s long s tht vil tion is not stroy, h
os not i.” An until h is, h nnot rorn in nothr rlm.
hn it is r in th light o possil onntion to orostrinism, th
Devadūta Sutta sms to tk on nw signi n. rtiulrly th rol o m
s jug n torturr sms to y in th o imprsonl karma.
It is spultiv, ut w oul s th Buhist thory o krm s th rsult
o orostrin-styl thiiztion o onut, with its ffts on rli stintions, ppli to th Inin-styl rirth shtology. rsult is istintiv
shtology n morlity.
wo or ore Cultures
Hving onsir som o itzl’s suggst prllls w must now turn to th
prolm o how is rom Irn might hv n trnsmitt into th rs ssoit with Buhism, n smingly not, in most ss, to th intrvning
Brhmnil ultur. ’ll gin y stting th sn.
ithin th lst th history o Ini in th rst millnnium
hs
n sustntilly rvis, lthough onsnsus on th tils is still mrging.
An pprisl o h thory is yon th sop o this rtil, ut most sholrs
now gr tht y th ginning o th rst millnnium in ppr Gngs Vlly,
in th r o th mun-Gngs Do, thr xist th Kuru-ñāl stt’. It
ws villg-s rthr thn urn, n omint y th Kuru tri. It ws in
this rgion tht th gv
ws ompil, n th lort śrauta rituls wr .
vlop. lgns o th hāhārt r proly s on historil vnts
in this rgion.
itzl (
,
,
), Bronkhorst (
) n mul (
) hv ll sri son, joining ulturl omplx, m up o svrl smll stts in
th Cntrl Gngs Vlly. It ws within this son rgion tht Buhism, Jinna ca tāva kālaṅkaroti yāva na tam
. pāpakammam
. byantīhoti. y trnsltion.
–
ism n othr Śrmn
. rligions mrg. is Cntrl gion ws not initilly
or unmntlly Vi, ut it ws Ini lngug spking. Kuru-ñāl Brhmins, r som initil rlutn, gn migrting into th Cntrl gion .
, so tht Brhmins tur in rly Buhist txts ut o not omint
thm. r wr proly in uns rom Chlolithi ulturs in th Vinhy
Hills, hrshtr, n th orthrn Dn, n possily som ito-Burmn
in un s wll, though th ntur n xtnt o this in un is skthily unrstoo t st. Cntrl gion lso sw th ginnings o th son urnistion o Ini, with itis suh s Kāśi (Vārānsi),
Śrāvstī n ājgrh
.
. ing
oun in th th or th ntury
. s ts r still vgu n on
s on urrnt gusss or th t o th Buh rthr thn rm rhologil ts (n thos gusss hv shi orwrs y ntury sin most o th
rhology ws rport). During th litim o th Buh th Cntrl Gngs
plin kingoms Kosl n gh wr oth ggrssiv militristi stts tht
wr xpning thir trritory.
Dshpn (
,
) supports th i o two ulturs on th sis o historil linguistis. r wr st-wst iffrns in Ino-Aryn ilts, with
th strn ilts thought to hv rokn wy rom th Ino-Irnin slightly
rlir; this suggsts t lst two wvs o linguisti hng in Ini, ssoit
prsumly with two wvs o immigrnts.
Gnti stuis o not yt hv th rsolution rquir to sh light on this
prolm. y o show migrnts rom th stpps o Cntrl Asi, who wr
proly spkrs o Ino-Irnin or Ino-Aryn lngugs, ut ths migrnts
must hv n w in numr n mostly ml (ngupt t l.
, Crvlhoilv t l.
, ih t l.
, jumr
). is lvs us to xplin th
ominn o Ino-Aryn soil ustoms, lngugs n thnology in orthrn
Ini in trms othr thn ovrwhlming numrs or onqust. It is not lr tht
w hv stistory nswr to this qustion.
Amist th lrgr-sl politil vlopmnts o th rst millnnium
,
th Śākys mrg s mrginl popl living in th oothills o th Himlys
t th northrn g o th Cntrl Gngs gion. y wr sor into th
Kingom o Kosl y th n o th th ntury
. ris suh s th ll,
Vrji,
. n in ll liklihoo th Śākys, sm to lt ntrnts to this r. y
r mntion in th āli, ut not in th lt Vi txts, whih ls itzl to
propos tht thy only ppr in th rgion twn th Lt Vi n Erly
Brhrt
.
–
Buhist prios (itzl
), i.. twn out
n
. As w
will s, thy rought with thm numr o turs orign to xisting ulturs
in th Gngs lin.
Śākys nd Śks
ythins wr ttl-hring noms o th Eursin tpps who t iffrnt tims rng rom
to st n twn out n north, or rom
prsnt-y uv to th Blk . tpps wr inhit y numr o
pstorlist n grrin groups, ut moil ttl hring m th ominnt
listyl in th rly Iron Ag. ythins r istinguish y thir omstition o horss, thir nomi ttl-ring listyl, thir uril mouns, n
n rtisti trition turing niml imgs. ir mtril ultur is sri
in til in Dvis-Kimll t l. (
).
ny uthors ollow th Buh’s ontmporry, Hrootus (.
–
), in rrring to th tris nountr nr Europ, spilly in th r
north o th Blk , s Skythai (Gk. Σ ύ α ) or Scythian, n th tris o th
Cntrl Asin tpps, to th st o th Cspin , s Sakai (Gk. Σά α ) or
Sacae. In Irnin th ki r known s k, n in nskrit s Śk. is suggsts tht Śk/k/Σά α rprsnts wht thy ll thmslvs. Both ythin
n Śk r us rthr loosly, howvr, n oth n rr to ny stppwlling popl. ythin is on us s ror trm tht inlus th Śk
s sugroup, whih is how I will us it.
ythins i not us writing; howvr, th sholrly onsnsus is tht
thy spok Ino-Irnin lngugs (lonsky
, Forston
). n th sis
o mtril ultur, prtiulrly kurgan or uril mouns, Cron ting shows
thr min prios o ythin history (Alksv
):
th – th nturis
th – th nturis
th – r nturis
: pr-ythin n Initil ythin phs
: rly ythin phs
: lssil ythin phs
ythins wr importnt plyrs in history uring th Ahmni Empir,
whih orrspons to th rly n lssil phs. vrl iffrnt groups o
thm r ror oth in th royl insriptions o King Drius (.
–
) n in th History o Hrootus. ost o th pr-ythin uril mouns
r in th st o Cntrl Asi nr prsnt-y uv n ongoli, ut in th th
–
ntury thr ws rpi xpnsion wst, proly prompt y hngs in th
limt (Dvis-Kimll t l.
, vn Gl
). Howvr, vn t this rly
stgth on whih most onrns usth ythins sm to hv wnr ross
th whol o Eursi (Alksv
,
). ki o Hrootus’ nrrtiv,
who liv on th Estrn shors o th Cspin , wnt on to om rulrs o
prts o Irn, Aghnistn n Gnhār in th n n st nturis
, ut
r tht gn to rom history.
For itzl th similrity o th nms Śk n Śāky is no oinin. Both
ppr to riv rom th root √śak, to l, strong or powrul’. Śāky is
proly rivtiv orm mning rlt to, or sn rom, th Śks’ (.
sv. Śāky). nms Śāky n Śk r proly ognt, howvr th
unrlying mning is powrul’, n it is not unlikly tht two isprt groups
might rr to thmslvs s th powrul’, or vn givn tht pitht. In th
Ambat. tha
. Sutta th Śākys r sri s r, hrsh, touhy n rgumnttiv (can. dā,
. pharusā, lahusā n bhassā) (D i. – ), whih oul onsistnt
with sriptions o stpps tris in Hrootus; ut w n to kp in min tht
in itzl’s ount thy h rriv in Ini nturis or th Buh n h
n thoroughly ssimilt. similrity in nms is not nough to intiy
th Śākys with th Irnin ks. n to strt looking mor losly t why
w might onsir th Śākys to riv rom th Śks. I’ll gin y looking t
th i tht th Śākys rriv in Ini rltivly lt.
igrtion in the th entury
ihl itzl nots tht in Vi txts ssoit with th strn Gngs plin,
non o th vrious tris tht popult th āli txts r oun. ky, ll,
Vjji, Lihvi, y, Kālām, Buli, oriy n Vsli r ll missing rom th
Brāhmana
txts. By ontrst, ānini
knows th lls n th
.
. n Āranyaka
.
Vrjis
s
tris
o
th
nj
n
jsthn
rsptivly.
om o th lls must
.
hv rmin hin, s Alxnr’s mssors mt popl ll “lloi”
(itzl
:
). itzl rsons tht ths tris must hv rriv in Ini
n migrt stwrs in th sp twn th omposition o th lt Vi
txts n th litim o th Buh, i.. twn out
n
(itzl
:
).
t tht th Śākys r not mntion until th Buhist prio my
xplin in othr wys. y my hv n inignous to th rthough this
riss th qustion o whr thy got n Ini-lngug nm, sin th inig-
–
nous popl most likly spok n Austro-Asiti lngug. y my hv n
n rly wv o th Ini-spking popls. Howvr, ths xplntions on’t
xplin how th Śākys m into ontt with is suh s iviing th prson
into oy, sph n min or morl purposs, whih is so vry lik th orostrin i.
itzl’s tim rm or th migrtion o non-Vi tris stwrs is still
vry ro, ut w n nrrow it own. Asko rpol (
) hs inpnntly
put orwr vry similr hypothsis. rpol is onrn with th ān. vs,
.
n y omining rhologil n txtul vin h oms to th onlusion
tht group o Irnins, gnrilly ll ān. u
. or pl’, ntr Ini roun
vi th Inus Vlly. om o th ān. us
. wnt north to om th
ān. vs
o th Mahābhārata, ut th min prt o rpol’s rgumnt hs th
.
ān. us
ontinuing
to migrt southwrs own th wst ost n vntully
.
oming th rst Ino-Europn spkrs in ri Lnk (rpol
:
– ). A
possil wknss o this rgumnt is tht inhls is usully onsir n Ini
rthr thn n Irnin lngug. Howvr, rpol suggsts tht th ān. vs
.
“quikly opt th rlir lol ultur n lngug”, n w ssum th protoinhls ān. u
with th
. i th sm. Hr w might ompr th ān. vs
.
th ntury ors migrnts to ormny, who rpily opt Frnh lngug
n ustoms. Furthrmor, th ān. vs’
nwly-won positions wr “lgitimis
.
with rit gnlogis tht m thm rnh o th rlir ruling mily”
(rpol
:
).
king somthing o n intuitiv lp, rpol s: “Anothr sussul
group ws th mily to whih th Buh long: th Śākys, too wr ān. us,
.
ultimtly o Śk origin, s thir nm rvls” (rpol
:
). rpol’s
t o .
or th ginning o this migrtion is wll within itzl’s tim
rm.
As it hppns, limt sintists hv propos tht n rupt limt shi
“towrs inrs humiity us y lin o solr tivity” llow or
rmti xpnsion o ythin ultur roun
(vn Gl t l.
,
; lso Chmrs t l.
). shi proly hppn rpily, within
prhps , n lso l to “ rynss risis” us y wk monsoon intnsity in north-wst Ini r
(vn Gl t l.
). Vn Gl t l.
lso not tht “riity or popl to shi rom sntism to shp/got pstorlism” (vn Gl t l.
:
), whil Gupt t l. suggst tht hngs
in rops grown woul lso rsult rom limt hng n my xplin th us
–
o millt, lntils, hik ps t. (Gupt t l.
:
). At th sm tim,
glithi popl wr moving rom outh Ini into th Dn with iron n
horss, n “thy wr proly rsponsil or th n o th Chlolithi ultur in this rgion” (vn Gl t l.
:
). Asko rpol, howvr, ss th
mgliths o outh Ini s prout o th ān. us
:
. moving south (rpol
).
Anothr possil vin o vin is suggst y oms Hopkins’s lim
(in mul
) tht th Cntrl Gngs ultur h similritis to th lw
ultur. lw wr on o svrl Chlolithi soitis whih ourish in
th orthrn Dn, hrshtr n Gujrt uring th son millnnium
. A tur o ths ulturs is tht thy, lik th Inus Civilistion, s
rltivly ruptly. “A rsti hng in th limt ourr roun
B.C.,
whn inrsing riity st in. is proly l to srtion o th vst mjority
o Chlolithi sttlmnts” (Dhvlikr
:
). nl srtion ourr
roun
. It my tht th mor rnt n pris t o
pplis
hr s wll, n tht th ollps o Chlolithi ulturs in th Dn mirrors
th onitions y th lls, Vrji
. n Śākys.
th ntury
hng in limt lso orrspons roughly with th
hng rom ronz to iron. It lso orrspons to th ompiltion o th gv
.
into olltion (Dshpn
:
). Climt hng t whih n urt to within s my n inrsingly usul tool in stlishing th
hronology o nint Inin ulturl hngs. t o
or this rupt
hng ts th t propos y rpol, n this in turn lns support to itzl’s
onjtur. hthr or not th Śks wr rlly ān. us,
. s rpol suggsts, w
oul t lst imgin tht shrp rution in monsoon intnsity, omin
with prssur rom outsi Ini in th orm o vigorous n xpning tris o
stpp noms, my hv us th migrtions o th lls n Vrjis
. tht r
rsonly wll ttst.
ther oures of Irnin In uene
Aginst this pitur w n to rll tht th Ahmni Empir lim or
ontroll trritory s r st s th Inus ivr rom th lt th ntury
until Alxnr o on inv in
. xtnt n urtion o this
ontrol is still mttr o t, ut oring to Hrootus th strpy o Hinuš
–
ws th lrgst in th Empir. r wr mny potntil vtors or Irnin n
sopotmin is to n thir wy into Ini, with politil n tr tis.
might not, or instn, tht Inin writing systms, rst th Khros. thī
. sript n
ltr Brāhmī-Lipi, sm to s t lst in prt on th orm o Armi writing
us y Ahmni ministrtors. wor lipi writing’ itsl is rsin
lon wor (lomon
: ). A lt āli trition sris prins ing snt
to xil or ution, n xil ws th min Ahmni ity in Gnhār.
Anothr point m y mul, s on Hopkins’ unpulish ook, is tht th
rst us o oins in Ini is rlt to tr ontts twn th Ahmnis
n th Cntrl Gngti rgion (mul
: ).
Aoring to Dvi ingr, Bylonin stronomy gn to introu
into Ini vi n Irnin intrmiry, n this nnot hv hppn or
th Ahmni Empir onqur oth sopotmi n Gnhār (ingr
:
). Howvr, som yrs ltr h sys “th in un o th stronomy o
sopotmin txt] Mul.Apin upon Vi txts ompos shortly or
n out
n lrly isrn” (ingr
:
). For instn,
th Jyotisavedāṅga
(.
th
ntury
)
ontins
lnr
whih
is similr to
.
Bylonin stronomy (ingr
:
). ingr lso noti tht list o
ivintion thniqus oun in th Brahmajāla Sutta is lmost intil in orm
n ontnt to sopotmin ivintion mnuls Šumma ālu n Enūna anu
Enlil (ingr
,
). t th sutta oris th monks rom using ths
typs o ivintion suggsts tht thy wr tivly prtis in orth-Est Ini. liklihoo is tht thy wr spr to Ini in Irnin rnsions y th
Ahmnis (ingr
:
). prision o th mmory, omin with
th story o Barlaam & Ioasaph, is suggstiv to tphni Dlly: “is is th
st vin w hv or Chln sholrs living r ro s xprts n tutors in royl ourts....” (Dlly
: ). vin to support th prsn
o Chlns in Ini t th tim is skthy t st, n o ours th i o th
Buh’s thr ing king is inurt. Dlly sms to ovrrhing th
vin hr.
point m y Gérr Fussmn in his
Gon ltur is rlvnt:
“ my lso suppos tht th non-Vi hrtristis o som rly Inin
ough tr l (
) nots tht this my misring.
story o Brlm & Iosph (oowr & ttingly
) is supposly s on Jātk
story, ut th surviving vrsions r so hvy with Christin rtions tht intiying Buhist
lmnts is srly possil.
–
onptions r not nssrily orrowings rom th inignous Inin popls
th Ārys vnquish or ssimilt, ut Āryn is whih nvr oun pl
in th Vs” (Fussmn
: ).
igni ne
Is hv historis. An yt Buhist nrrtivs o th historil uniqunss o
th Buh pt tht th Śākyn g prou numr o is n prtis
with no pprnt history. lst two s hv sn svrl ttmpts to rt
historis or som o th Buh’s is, ut ths ttmpts r, lmost invitly,
mostly with rrn to Vi ultur. know so vry littl out Inin soil history outsi th Vi miliu or Buhism tht othr omprisons r
srly possil. hr thr is txtul vin or .
it is all Vi;
n rhology hs provi prious littl hlp to t. Bronkhorst (
) hs
ttmpt to turn th pt hronology on its h n m th Buhists
irtly in until on th pniss,
ut whthr this rvision is ril rmins
.
to sn. Both Bronkhorst (
) n Gomrih (
) hv rgu tht Buhists must hv n in un y thir Jin ontmporris, ut s Gomrih
(
: ) sys, “ur vin or rly Jinism is istrssingly mgr n iffiult to vlut”, n “In t muh o our st vin or rly Jinism oms
rom Buhist] txts in āli.” om historins hv ritiis th us o āli txts
in ronstruting Buhist history (ltrs
:
– ), so thir us in ronstruting iffrnt n ompting rligion must outul t st.
Evn i th nw is o Buhism h thir origin in singl iniviul,
tht iniviul xist in ulturl ontxt, grw up in mily, n sor
is n ttitus rom prnts, prs n thrs. Buhism mrgs rom n
pprntly ivrs ulturl miliu, in whih th Śāky tri h n onqur
y ynmi n ulturlly istint nighour, n othr mjor politil hngs
wr going on.
is n prtis ssoit with th Śākys n rly Buhists ssy ov o show som similrity to Irnin or orostrin is or prtis.
wkst link is th similrity twn stūpas n kurgan uril mouns. Dspit th onvition o som o th uthors it, this onntion sms tnuous
t st. Howvr, th inst mrrigs whih mrk th ouning o th Śāky ln
oring to th āli Cnon r mor suggstiv, spilly in light o th hostility to th prti y ltr Buhist uthors. iling mrrigs r milir in
Irn; n w unrstn tht suh story is likly to hv surviv only i it hs
–
grin o truth. strongst rgumnt or link to orostrinism is th ivision o tions into oy, sph n min. t this i vlop in Irn
n th Cntrl Gngs plin inpnntly woul wil oinin. thr
spts o shtology r suggstiv. i o post-mortm jugmnt or vryy tions, lt lon ing jug y go, is not prt o Vi shtology
in B or C, ut is ntrl to orostrinism n Buhism. rtiulrly, th
i o rlm o punishmnt sms to missing rom Vi shtology ut is
prominnt in oth orostrinism n Buhism.
I think most historins woul pt tht uring th prio unr onsirtion tht th orr twn Ini n rsi ws lurr rthr thn shrp,
oth in gogrphil n ulturl trms – just s th istintion twn kistn
n Aghnistn is toy. thr potntil sours o Irnin in un xist, ut
thy o not hv th sm xplntory powr s th Śāky/Śk onntion us thy r mor or lss ontmporry with th Buh. impl gogrphy
suggsts tht ontt twn Ini n Irn woul hv ourr in th strn rgions o Ini, i.. th Inus Vlly, n th ppr Gngs gion, ut s
r s I m wr thr is no grt in un o Irnin ultur on Vi ultur.
Bus itzl’s thory inlus lt migrtion into Estrn Ini rom nonVi prt o strn Ini, it provis vtor or rrying th is roun th
Kuru-ñāl stt n irtly into th Cntrl Gngs gion.
hil this is n rgumnt rom irumstntil vin, I hop I hv shown
tht th vin, suh s it is, mks onntion twn th Śākys n Irn t
lst plusil. I this thsis is orrt, thn som turs o Buhism r tully
ulturl turs o th Śāky tri prsrv rom n rlir prio o living in
Irn. It still llows or th Buh s visionry n innovtor, n it os not
ny th in un o Brhmins n Jins, ut it rons th ulturl pool rom
whih h might hv rwn his is. I th rgumnt is pt, whih rmins
to sn, thn it oviously hs som intrsting implitions or th stuy o th
history o Ini n rly Buhism.
vr th lst two s or so n inrsingly rih n omplx ount o
Inin history or th Common Er hs mrg. Buhism hs om to
sn s involv in ilogu with th surrouning ulturs n s rwing is
n prtis rom thm. rhps it ws this ilogu with so mny ompting
iologis tht hlp Buhism to r itsl o tril tis n om rligion
whih ppl to nyon? ht is rlly intrsting out itzl’s Irnin origin
thory or th Śākys is tht it my llow us to s th Buh s prout o his
–
own ultur. I itzl’s thsis is orrt, n I think it rtinly mrits srious
onsirtion n urthr invstigtion, it suggsts tht gurs lik th Buh
n hāvīr my hv n th ulmintion o pross rthr thn its gnsis.
t pross ws th ssimiltion o tri, or tris, who rriv in north-st
Ini in th lt th ntury
, n rought with thm is n prtis rom
Irn n orostrinism.
Arevitions
B
C
D
Gk.
v
V
.
ŚB
kt.
Brhār
nyk
pnis.
.
.
.
Chānogy pnis
.
Dīgh ikāy
Grk
jjhim ikāy
onir-illims nskrit English Ditionry
hāvstu
gv
.
Śtpth Brāhmn
.
nskrit
Biliogrphy
Alksv, A u t l.
. A Chronology o th ythin Antiquitis o Eursi
Bs on w Arhologil n C Dt.’ Radiocarbon, ( B):
–
.
Alksv, A u t l.
. om rolms in th tuy o th Chronology o th
Anint omi Culturs in Eursi ( th - r Cnturis BC).’ Geochronometria: Journal on Methods and Applications of Absolute Chronology.
:
–
.
Bkkr, Hns .
. onumnts to th D in Anint orth Ini.’ Indo-Iranian
Journal. : – .
Brhrt, Hinz (.)
. e Dating of the Historical Buddha/Die Datierung des
Historischen Buddha, part (Symposien zur Buddhismusforschung, IV ). Göttingn: Vnnhok & uprht, pp. - .
Bowitz, H..
. Drk n Dp nrworl in th V.’ Journal of the
American Oriental Society.
( ):
– .
Boy, ry.
. Dth ( ) Among orostrins.’ Encyclopaedia Iranica: Vol. VII,
Fs. :
– . nlin: http://www.irnionlin.org/rtils/th- .
–
Boy, ry.
. Humt Hūxt Huvršt.’ Encyclopædia Iranica. nlin: http://
www.irnionlin.org/rtils/humt-huxt-huvrst.
Bronkhorst, Johnns.
. Greater Magadha: studies in the culture of early India.
Lin: Brill.
Brown, ormn .
. igvi Equivlnt or Hll.’ Journal of the American
Oriental Society.
( ): – .
Cmron, ry .
. n the Edge of the Auspicious: Gender and Caste in Nepal.
nivrsity o Illinois rss.
Crvlho-ilv, Dnis, rjl, tin, n ylr-mith, Chris.
. Anint Inin roots?’ Journal of Biosciences.
( ): – .
Chmrs, Frnk . t l.
. Glolly synhronous limt hng
yrs
go: roxy t rom pt in outh Amri.’ Earth and Planetary Science Letters.
( – ):
– .
Dlly, tphni.
. e Legacy of Mesopotamia. xor nivrsity rss.
Dvis-Kimll, Jnnin t l. (s).
. Nomads of the Eurasian Steppes in the
Early Iron Age. Brkly, CA: int rss.
Dshpn, hv .
. Gnsis o gvi
rtro xion: Historil n
.
oiolinguisti Invstigtion.’ in Dshpn, .. n Hook, .. Aryan and
Non-Aryan in India. Cntr or outh n outhst Asin tuis. nivrsity
o ihign.
Emnu, .B.
. s r Cross-Cousin rrig mong th Śākys?’ Journal
of the American Oriental Society.
( ):
– .
Forstn, Bnjmin . IV.
. Indo-European Language and Culture: An Introduction. ( n .) ily-Blkwll.
Frik, oms E., ornton, Arln, n Dhl, Dilli .
. Fmily rgnistion n th g Lour rnsition in mng Community o pl.’ Human
Ecology. ( ):
- .
Frik, oms E., ornton, Arln, n Dhl, Dilli .
. tting in pl:
oil Chng, th Li Cours, n Brisrvi in ngil.’ Human Ecology.
( ):
- .
Fussmn, Gérr.
. Revisiting the History of Ancient India: e Need for a
New Vision. th Gon Ltur. Amstrm: oyl thrlns Amy o
Arts n ins. nlin: http://www.knw.nl/Contnt/IntrntKA/pulitis/p/
.p.
Gigr, .
. A Pāli Grammar. v. .] (riginlly pulish
, & trns.
).
Gomrih, ihr.
. What the Buddha ought. Lonon: Equinox.
Gon, Jn.
. Triads in the Veda. orth-Holln u. Co.
–
Goo, Anthony.
. n th on-Existn o “Drviin Kinship”.’ Edinburgh
Papers In South Asian Studies. . Cntr or outh Asin tuis, nivrsity o
Einurgh.
Gupt, Anil K.
. Apttion n humn migrtion, n vin o griultur
oinint with hngs in th Inin summr monsoon uring th Holon.’
Current Science.
( ):
– .
Huntr, ..
. e Indian Empire: its People, History and Products. Lonon :
rünr & Co.
Jons, J.J.
. e Mahāvastu. Vols. Luz & Co.
Jurwiz, Jonn.
. gv,
“smll sl” soitis n rirth shtology.’
.
A rvis vrsion o hr onrn ppr rom th th orl nskrit Conrn, July
.] Oxford Centre for Buddhist Studies. nlin: http://www.os.
org/.
uly, G.C. (trns.)
. e History of Herodotus: parallel English/ Greek.
milln.
jumr, rth .
. humn gnti history o outh Asi.’ Current Biology.
F ; ( ): – .
lnr, ..
. orostr ii. Gnrl urvy.’ Encyclopædia Iranica. nlin:
http://www.irnionlin.org/rtils/zorostr-ii-gnrl-survy.
orgunov, .L. & Khokhlov, ..
. Kurgns n noms: nw invstigtions
o moun urils in th southrn rls.’ Antiquity. :
– .
ttir, Jn.
. A Few Good Men: e Bodhisattva Path According to e Inquiry
of Ugra (Ugrapariprcchā).
nivrsity o Hwi’i rss.
.
yskr, Gnnth.
. Imagining Karma: Ethical Transformation in Amerindian, Buddhist, and Greek Rebirth. nivrsity o Cliorni rss.
rpol, Asko.
. “Πανδα n īt: n th Historil Bkgroun o th nskrit Epis.’ Journal of the American Oriental Society.
( ):
– .
ingr, Dvi.
. Astronomy n Astrology in Ini n Irn.’ Isis.
( ) no.
.
ingr, Dvi.
. sopotmin omns in nskrit’ ppr prsnt t La Circulation des biens, des personnes et des idées dans le proche-oriet ancien. Actes de
la XXXVIIIe Recontre Assyriologique Internationale. ris, – juillt.
ingr, Dvi.
. Lgis in Astronomy n Clstil mns.’ in Dlly,
tphni. (.) e Legacy of Mesopotamia. xor nivrsity rss.
rzyluski, Jn.
. Hrmik n th rigin o Buhist tūps.’ e Indian
Historical Quarterly. I ( ) Jun:
– .
rzyluski, Jn.
. Ls spt trrs u Bruur.’ Harvard Journal of Asiatic
Studies. ( ):
– .
–
y, ginl A.
. Buddhist Saints in India: A Study of Buddhist Values and
Orientations. xor nivrsity rss.
ih, Dvi t l.
. onstruting Inin popultion history.’ Nature.
:
–
( ptmr
).
hys Dvis, C.A.F.
. Buddhist Psychology: An Inquiry Into the Analysis and
eory of Mind in Pāli literature. ( n .) Luz & Co.
hys Dvis, C.A.F.
. n s illr.’ Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African
Studies. : – .
hys Dvis, C.A.F.
. A Manual of Buddhism for Advanced Students. Lonon :
hlon rss.
hys Dvis, C.A.F.
. e Birth of Indian Psychology and its Development in Buddhism. Luz & Co.
hys Dvis, ..
. Buddhist India. otill Bnrsiss,
.
lomon, ihr.
. Ancient Buddhist Scrolls from Gandhara. nivrsity o
shington rss.
mul, Goffry.
. e Origins of Yoga and Tantra: Indic Religions to the irteenth Century. Cmrig nivrsity rss.
nghrkshit.
. e Ten Pillars of Buddhism. inhors ulitions.
ngupt, nghmitr t l.
. olrity n mporlity o High-solution
-Chromosom Distriutions in Ini Intiy Both Inignous n Exognous
Expnsions n vl inor Gnti In un o Cntrl Asin storlists.’
e American Journal of Human Genetics.
( ):
– .
ilk, Jonthn A.
. Instuous Anstris: Fmily rigins o Gutm
ihārth, Arhm n rh in Gnsis : , n th ttus o riptur in
Buhism.’ History of Religions. ( ):
– .
ilk, Jonthn A.
. uttiv rsin prvrsitis: Inin Buhist onmntions o orostrin los-kin mrrig in ontxt.’ Bulletin of the School of
Oriental and African Studies. :
– .
ingh, nij rtp.
. Agriulturl Bkgroun o th Chlolithi Culturs
o Cntrl Ini n th Dn.’ in Gopl, Lllnji n rivstv, V.C. (s.).
. History of agriculture in India, up to c.
A.D. w Dlhi : Jointly
ulish y CC n Conpt u. Co. or th rojt o History o Inin
in, hilosophy n Cultur,
: pp.
– .
tusrg, ihl.
. Hll in orostrin History.’ Numen: International Review
for the History of Religions.
( / ):
– .
trzygowski, Jos.
. rint or th orth.’ Eastern Art. ( ): – .
pr, omil.
. e Penguin History of Early India: From Origins to AD
.
nguin Books.
–
pr, omil.
. Ancient Indian Social History: Some Interpretations. ( n v.
.) rint Blkswn.
rutmnn, oms .
. Consnguinous rrig in li Litrtur.’ Journal
of the American Oriental Society. ( ):
– .
suhi, yūtrō.
. wo Ctgoris o Brhmins in th Erly Buhist rio.’
e Memoirs of the Toyo Bunko. : – .
vn Gl, B. t l.
. Climt hng n th xpnsion o th ythin ultur
r
BC: hypothsis.’ Journal of Archaeological Science. ( ) Dmr:
–
.
vn Gl, B., hin, V. n su, .,
. olr oring o limt hng n
monsoon-rlt ulturl shi in wstrn Ini roun
l. yrs. BC.’ Chptr
in: . su n V. hin (s) Monsoon and Civilization. oli Books, w
Dlhi, pp.
– .
lsh, uri.
. e Long Discourses of the Buddha: A Translation of the Dīgha
Nikāya. isom ulitions.
ltrs, Jonthn .
. utts s History: Four Approhs to th rmon on th
ol ust (Ariypriysn-sutt). History of Religions. ( ) F:
– .
tr l, oin. (trns.)
nivrsity rss.
. Herodotus: e Histories. (print
.) xor
rnr, Krl.
. Ino-Europns n th Ino-Aryns: th hilologil,
Arhologil n Historil Contxt. Annals of the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute. LVIII:
– .
rnr, Krl.
. r nskrit xts on City orship…’ Book viw] Buddhist Studies Review.
( ): – .
itzl, ihl.
. n th lolistion o Vi txts n shools (trils on
Vi skhs, ). India and the Ancient world. History, Trade and Culture before A.D.
. .H.L. Eggrmont Juil Volum, . y G. ollt, rintli
Lovninsi Anlt , Luvn
:
– .
itzl, ihl.
. ring th Vi ilts.’ Dialectes dans les littératures indoaryennes, . y Coltt Cillt. ris
, pp. – .
itzl, ihl.
. Erly nskritiztion: rigins n Dvlopmnt o th Kuru
tt.’ Electronic Journal of Vedic Studies. ( ) D.
.
itzl, ihl.
. Dvlopmnt o th Vi Cnon n its hools:
oil n olitil iliu.’ (trils on Vi Śākhās, ) in Inside the Texts,
Beyond the Texts. New Approaches to the Study of the Vedas. (Hrvr rintl
ris. pr inor, vol. .) Cmrig
, pp.
– .
itzl, ihl.
. Erly ours or outh Asin ustrt Lngugs.’ Mother
Tongue. pil Issu, t.
.
–
itzl, ihl.
. Autohthonous Aryns? Evin rom l Inin n
Irnin xts.’ Electron Journal of Vedic Studies. y
.
itzl, ihl.
. IDLG@livrpool..uk, ov. n ,
.
itzl, ihl.
. oving rgts? xts, Lngug, Arhology n History
in th Lt Vi n rly Buhist rios.’ Indo-Iranian Journal.
:
–
.
itzl, ihl.
. Ino-Eursinrsrh. nlin orum.] http:// groups.
yhoo.om/group/Ino-Eursinrsrh/mssg/
.
oowr, G., ttingly, H. n Lng, D..
. Barlaam and Ioasaph. Hrvr: Lo Clssil Lirry.
ynn, Alxnr.
. e Origin of Buddhist Meditation. outlg.
lonsky, Loni .
. om Ethnogntil Hypothss’ in Dvis-Kimll,
Jnnin t l (s.).
. Nomads of the Eurasian Steppes in the Early Iron
Age. Brkly, CA: int rss: pp.
– .