Bharatkalyan97

A homage to Hindu civilization.

1.
APR

There Never Was A Language Called Avestan -- Shivsankar

Sastry

Bharatha Desam History

April 3, 2018

There Never Was A Language Called

Avestan
Posted By: Shivsankar Sastry

The average reader can be excused for wondering what on earth Avestan might be and why
anyone should be interested. Avestan is a language that ancient Zoroastrians (Parsis) are said to
have spoken. If this is enough information for the reader – the rest of this article may not
interest you. But it should be of interest to the general question of ancient Indian history and the
history of Indian languages.

To simplify the story let me relate what philologists (scholars of the history of languages) of the
19th and 20th centuries said about Avestan. They theorized that there was some mother
language in Russia (or Europe) that was carried by migrating (or invading) people towards
India. On the way – some people broke off from this group and became Zoroastrians, going
towards Iran, inventing and speaking “Avestan” and the rest went to India and started speaking
Sanskrit and composed the Vedas. Because the “Avestan” speaking people, the Zoroastrians,
were in Iran – it was called an “Iranian language”. According to this theory, Sanskrit of India and
Avestan of Iran were “sister languages” – having both sprung from an imaginary mother
language.

So how was the name “Avestan” given to this language? There are no ancient Zoroastrian texts
that refer to their language as “Avestan” In fact no one knew of any original Zoroastrian
language of any name, be it Avestan or any other name. But here is how the name was given. In
the late 1700s a man called Anquetil du Perron came to India and lived for a few months with
Parsi priests in Surat, who taught him what they knew of Zoroastrian chants (gathas) and
rituals. Perron also collected some Zoroastrian texts and returned to Europe where he wrote a
book in French called “Zend Avesta – Ouvrage du Zoroaster” meaning “Zend Avesta – the work of
Zoroaster”. Perron’s work was initially dismissed but 60 years later it was validated and
corrected by a man called Eugene Burnouf. To make the corrections Burnouf used a 13th
century Sanskrit book by an Indian called Neryosangh Dhaval. That book was a Sanskrit
translation of a Pahlavi language version of Zoroastrian holy texts. So whatever is written about
the 3000 plus year old “Zend Avesta” is derived from verbal accounts of 17th century Parsi
scholars, contemporary texts and a 13th century book that was written in Pahlavi language and
translated to Sanskrit. A 3000 year gap between the original language and the translation does
not inspire confidence about the linguistic theories regarding the identity of the original
Zoroastrian language.

The meaning of “Zend Avesta” itself has been the subject of confusion – with scholars and
linguists thinking that it means Zoroastrian holy text, or alternatively, commentary in the
Zoroastrian language. “Avestan” was simply named as a language that existed 3000 years in the
past spoken by Zoroastrians in Iran. However the minor issue of a 3000 year gap did not
discourage linguists from making up their own language and a story to go with it. And linguists
proceeded to “reconstruct” the ancient language from fragments of texts that were written 3000
years later. And since the main source of reconstruction was from a 1300 AD Sanskrit text they
ended up with a language that sounded somewhat like Sanskrit but had some differences such
as the sound “sa” being replaced by the sound “ha” and some other changes. Linguists called this
language Avestan; claimed that it was spoken 3000 years ago by Zoroastrians and made up a
story of how a mother language came from somewhere and split into Avestan that went to Iran
and Sanskrit that developed in India

Here the reader would be justified in asking that if Avestan did not exist as a language, and was
simply cooked up by linguists by a process of guesswork which they called “reconstruction”,
what language did Zoroastrians speak? Is there an alternate story and is there any proof for an
alternate story? Yes there is.
First, what does “Zend Avesta” mean? Modern scholars now claim that the word “Avesta”
represents the texts and that “Zend” are commentaries on the texts. It is notable that Zend is also
pronounced as Zand. In fact in French, the language of Perron’s translation, Zend would be
pronounced as Zand. The greatest 20th century scholar who has translated the Zend Avesta is
Jatinder Mohan Chatterji who points out that in Sanskrit “zand” has a cognate word
“chhand”. Zand Avesta corresponds to chhand upastha which simply means Vedic
hymns. Chatterji quotes Panini as evidence of authenticity of this meaning. The great
grammarian Panini knew of the existence of these Zoroastrian texts. The connection between
the Zend Avesta and the Vedas are profound and seminal.

The links between the Vedas, particularly the Atharva Veda and the Zend Avesta are critical to
the question of what language the early Zoroastrians may have spoken and whether it was a
“sister language” of Sanskrit that developed independently while a group of Euroasians
migrated separately to Iran and India as postulated by theories proposed by linguists.

Jatinder Mohan Chatterji notes that the Gopatha Brahmana (a commentary on the Atharva Veda)
speaks of five Vedas. The Mahabharata too mentions five Vedas. But all standard references to
the Vedas speak of only four Vedas. So what is the missing “fifth veda”? Chatterji points out that
the last and most recent Veda, the Atharva Veda was known as the “Bhrigu-Angirasa Veda”
where Bhrigu and Angirasa are the names of ancient rishis (priestly scholars) associated with
that Veda. However the modern Atharva Veda is associated only with the rishi Angirasa. It
transpires that the Zend Avesta is the fifth Veda – the Bhrigu Veda or Bhargava Atharva Veda.
This explains the great commonality in the two texts, with chanting in a characteristic meter as
well as oral transmission over centuries.

These are not radical new revisionist constructs, but facts that have been published in multiple
works by a series of scholars in the west. But they are fatal to the theories of language spread
favoured by linguists and hence lie buried in large and unopened volumes. Fortunately, in the
age of the Internet, these volumes can be accessed and searched.

In his book, “The Zend-Avesta” first published in 1880 James Darmetester says: ”the Vedas come
from the same source as the Avesta”. Darmetester further records that other scholars too had
noticed this. He writes “Roth showed after Burnouf how the epical history of Iran was derived from
the same source as the myths of Vedic India, and pointed out the primitive identity of Ahura Mazda,
the supreme god of Iran, with Varuna, the supreme god of the Vedic age.” What Darmetester is
trying to say is that the Vedas and the Zend Avesta arose from the same source. The statement is
interesting because European scholars have always considered the Zend Avesta as the history of
Iran as opposed to the Vedas representing an Indian past.

Dr. Martin Haug, in his book on the Zoroastrian religion notes that the Zend Avesta has
references to the Atharva Veda, showing that the Atharva Veda already existed at the time of
composition of the Zend Avesta.

In her book, “A History of Zoroastrianism (Volume 1)”, Mary Boyce includes a chapter on the
“pagan gods” that existed before Zoroaster. Boyce describes in great detail how every one of
these gods is also mentioned in in the Vedas. In other words, all pre-Zoroastrian gods that are
mentioned in Zoroastrian texts and absorbed into the Zoroastrian tradition are also mentioned
in the Vedas. There can be no better evidence of the origin of the Zoroastrian pantheon from an
earlier Vedic one. Boyce and other scholars choose to term the earlier common pantheon as
“Indo-Iranian” gods that were known before Zoroastrian and Vedic gods. There is no factual
basis for this terminology, although it is semantically accurate. A fact that is consistently ignored
by linguists is that at the time of the Vedas and Zoroaster – there was no separate country called
“Iran”. Western India formed a continuum from Punjab, to Balochistan, Afghanistan and Iran.
Common geographical references exist within the Vedas and the Zend Avesta.

The same gods find earlier mention in the Indian Vedas and later mention in the supposedly
Iranian Zoroastrianism. These so-called Indo-Iranian gods are unknown outside Zoroastrianism
and the Vedas. The evidence that Boyce presents points to the Vedic gods having existed earlier
and Zoroastrian gods were selected as a later development from the Vedic pantheon. The name
“Indo-Iranian gods” might as well be replaced by the perfectly accurate name “Vedic deities”.

The facts clearly point to the following conclusions:

1. The Vedas and the Zend Avesta have a common source

2. The Vedas date from an era earlier than the Zend Avesta
3. The last Veda (the Atharva Veda) and the Zend Avesta have a contemporaneous
origin

Now we come back to the theory made up by linguists that the Vedas and the Zend Avesta
represent separate religions that split off from a common source, with the Vedic people going
toward India, and the Zoroastrians going towards Iran, and each developing a similar but
distinct language.

Here is the problem. The three earlier Vedas, Rig, Yajur and Sama Veda were composed and
existed before the Atharva Veda. All these works are in Sanskrit. There is evidence found by
comparing the Atharva Veda with the Zend Avesta that the early Atharva Veda preceded the
Zend Avesta. At some time in the remote past the Atharva Veda consisted of works of two “fire
priests” – or Atharvans, named Bhrigu (Bhargava) and Angirasa. At that remote time the Atharva
Veda was also known as the “Bhrigu-Angirasa samhita”. But the modern Atharva Veda as known
to Hindus is associated only with Angirasa. The Zend Avesta is associated with the rishi
“Bhrigu” (or Bhargava). The Atharva Veda and the Zend Avesta are both orally transmitted
hymns chanted to a characteristic “meter” – a rhythmic pulse within the beat of the chant. The
main part of the Zend Avesta are called “gathas” which is a word recognizable by almost any
Indian as relating to music or chanting.

In detail, the Zend Avesta appears to consider all the gods mentioned in the Atharva Veda as evil,
or as enemies. This appears to have been a philosophical split within an existing Vedic group.

The “sound changes” indicating differences in pronunciation between the Zoroastrian holy texts
and the Vedas – such as Vedic “soma” being Zoroastrian “haoma” cannot irrefutably indicate a
separate people and separate geography. In fact the main Atharvan priest of the Zend Avesta –
Bhrigu has an ancient town bearing his name in the Indian state of Gujarat – namely Bharuch.
The historic name of Bharuch was “Bhrigu-kaksha”. Even today – “Bharucha” is a well-known
name among Parsis. That apart there are certain areas of modern day Gujarat where the people
speak Gujarati with the exact same “sound changes” of “sa” to “ha” – which linguists claimed is a
special change that occurred among Zoroastrians in Iran. Obviously that sound change is no
Iranian specialty.

From these facts it is impossible to claim that the language of the Zend Avesta developed
separately in Iran in parallel to a separate development of Sanskrit in India. The holy texts have
a common origin, with the Vedas being earlier. It is most likely that the early Zoroastrians spoke
Sanskrit or a dialect of Sanskrit rather than the “reconstructed” and patently artificial imagined
language that linguists created and called “Avestan”. The Zoroastrian language probably split off
from Sanskrit as the Zoroastrians migrated further towards Iran, and is more likely to be a
daughter language of Sanskrit than a sister language. The idea of Avestan as a “sister language”
of Sanskrit is needed only to support a particular theory of migration of languages that is
favoured by linguists but is increasingly being shown to be false by archaeological and genetic
evidence. But even without these modern developments it is clear that the linguistic story is
contrived and untenable. There was never a language called Avestan.

An incurable patriot, Dr. Shivsankar Sastry is a surgeon by profession; and a historian, thinker,
sociologist and military aviation enthusiast by choice

http://www.swatantramag.in/?p=2067

Posted 6th April 2018 by kalyan97

Labels: Indus Script itihas

20
View comments

4.

AnonymousApril 7, 2018 at 10:52 PM

Scholarly
Reply

5.

AnonymousApril 7, 2018 at 11:16 PM

I just want know how a person's language and culture can be decided by DNA
profiling when there no other evidences. Why can't Aryans migrate to other parts
of the world from Sindhu, Saraswathi, and Ganga regions.
Reply

6.

Ramakrishnan DApril 8, 2018 at 5:49 AM

There must be some truth in the theory that Atharva veda followers had migrated
towards the present Iran areas and the language there was called as Avesta. It
is for the researchers of languages to come out with their knowledge on the
relation between Sanskrit and Avesta and the relation between their religious
histories like Ramayana Mahabharata etc.
Reply
7.

SuchindranathAiyerSApril 8, 2018 at 7:15 AM

Avesthan was not a language. Avesthan is the creation of the written book to
replace the oral tradition of the preceding Vedai period in Persian History. The
Vedas (Mantras) are forbidden to be written. Books such as the Zorastrian Zend
Avestha began the Avesthan period.
Reply

8.

SuchindranathAiyerSApril 8, 2018 at 7:19 AM

The Atharva Veda period is Post Kurukshetra Civil War and was peculiar to the
Indo Gengetic Plain and the peninsular India. It was not part of Persian History
or culture as were the Rik and Shukla Yajur Veda. The Krishna Yajur Veda too
is peculiar to Indo Gangetic Plain and Peninsular India, though there may have
been some osmosis with Persia.
Reply
9.

SuchindranathAiyerSApril 8, 2018 at 7:23 AM

The treaty of Bharatha, significantly, replaced the Rajasooya of the Shukla Yajur
Veda with the Ashwamedha Yajna of the Krishna Yajur Veda.
Reply

10.

SuchindranathAiyerSApril 8, 2018 at 7:25 AM

Vyasa led a large team to recodify all the Vedas , including the Aagama (comes
for outside) and put together the Thaithreya Upanishad after 8 out of 10 Arya
males died at Kurukshetra and the Druhyus with temple worship, idols, many
gods etc merged with the Aryas.
Reply

11.

South IndianApril 8, 2018 at 9:03 AM

Looks like the Unknown commentator is Suchindranath Iyer - but he is non-

committal on the question of direction of migration.
 Reply

Replies

1.

SuchindranathAiyerSApril 8, 2018 at 11:56 PM

The direction of migration should be obvious from the chronology.

There were many inward and out ward migrations from the Indo
Gangetic plains. The original inhabitants are genetically connected
with the Andamanese, and the Bantus of Africa. Thereafter we had
the Druhyus of Mesopotamia (Ur civilization) who are connected to
the Semties and the Nilotics of Africa. Thereafter. there were the
multi racial Aryas who originated from the grasslands of Eurasia
(Stretching from the Urals to Mongolia). Outward migrations both
back to the grasslands. the Balkans and as far as the Baltics, as well
as to the South and to South East Asia occurred after the Civil War
of Kurukshtera as well as after Ashoka's revival of the Rajasooya
Yajna setting aside the consensus of the Ashwamedha Yajna
leading to fratricidal war, slaughter and the extermination of
Brahmanism as revenge for his being ostracised by Ashoka. Apart
from this you had any number of eddies and flurries such as the
Scythians, the Parthians, the Greeks, the Persians and the Tartars.
The Gurkhas of Nepal are descended from the Tartars and carry
many of these words and martial traditions in their vocabulary.

2.

AnonymousApril 11, 2018 at 12:59 AM

Good fictitious history. But not based on any facts.

You are correct South Indian. It is easy to detect Suchindrinath Aiyer
by his over-confident and cavalier way of speaking.
Some believe that ''you have to simply believe and it'll become real
enough''.
His confident words have been perennially debunked.
Also he doesn't even know that there has been negligible input into
the region which has been highighted by every single major genetic
study written since 2003.
The Druhyus originate from the Sarasvathi region. However he's
never read the Vedas. From there they migrated subsequently
founding the Druz and the Druids.
Also Parthians (Pahalavas) the Shakas (Panis) and the proto-Greeks
were of Indic origin.
Also, these were over-emphasised minorities. The Greeks used
predominantly mercenaries and has been true since the times of
Alexander and the Diadochi splinter states.
Shakas were driven out en masse. There was NEGLIGIBLE mixing.
They were virtually ETHNICALLY CLEANSED. Alexander
Cunningham has a hold on Aiyers and Indians in general on this.
There is also zero evidence of Tartars creating Nepalis. No work has
been done on it and is thus invalid.
''Outward migrations both back to the grasslands and to the
Balkans''. Note his circular argument of authority. Absolutely no
proofs or references. He then aptly runs onto insults afterwards
(tuquoque).
Persians had no significant impact either. Despite the invasion being
larger yet still. The influence more cultural in truth with limited
diffusion. However, there is considerable demographic influence of
Indians venturing into Persia in multiple waves. Countless genomes
of Indian origin are found in Iran with very little of the other being
found in India.
Foreign invasion theory repackaged.
He uses flamboyant language to CONVINCE. All bark but no bite.
Anyone wanting to know what Suchindranath Aiyer/Unknown
subscribes as a disinformation agent is simple. He subscribes to
Heinrich Van Loom's (1922) theory of the Aryans. He got his idea of
the Druhyus from him.
Mesopotamia also had not much to do with the Semites to quite an
extent. The Sumerians had nothing to do with the modern Semites
of today. Jericho had more Indic peoples construct and inhabit it.
The Gurkhas of Nepal are an isolated tribe who haven't had much
foreign input. Definitely not Tartar.
He writes fancifully and convincingly. Nothing more.
Also, the Aryans (now switched to ''Arya'' because now the ''racial''
element can be twisted with a greater degree of freedom) weren't
multi-racial. Because they never even existed.
There were hardly any inward migrations from the Indo-Gangetic
plain. DNA has debunked this.
However, there were mostly outward migrations of the Pre-Indo-
European, Proto-Indo-European and Indo-Euroepan peoples from
the hinterlands of India to found entire populations and colonies in
Europe, the Middle-East, Central Asia and thus extending further
east tending into the Tarim-Basin spanning from the Urals to
Mongolia.
Also, the origin of the Europeans tending all the way to the British
Isles and also the Blakan folklores of their ultimate Indian urheimat.
So all your claims have fallen flat.
Apart from this, you have a number of ''eddies'', ''whirlpools'' and
''flurries'' of migrations of the Hittites, Kassites, Mitanni, Arattas (also
known asthe Urartu), the forerunners of the Levant Civilisation (pre-
Gobekli Tepe), Slavs, Germanics, the Parshavs (Persians), Yazidis
 (carrying the Peacock emblem of Murugan and the distinctive conical
southeast facing Hindu temples) and many many more migrated
from India to the respective regions where they first colonised and
where they are found today.

3.

AnonymousApril 11, 2018 at 1:00 AM

The Druhyus migrated from the Sarasvathi into Mesopotamia (which

was already a periphery of the Hindu civilisation) and further into the
Levant establishing the Druz. The other branch of Druhyus migrated
over north and east of the Kashyap Muni (Caspian Sea) to a less
degree through the Caucasus and venture further west into Europe
establishing the Druids.

4.

TemplarSlayerAugust 1, 2019 at 10:26 PM

C K G Gulia sir, boss, whoever you are, you are guruji. Thanks for
that piercing rejoinder to Aiyer's Manasataramgini tier bullshit.

Reply
12.

SuchindranathAiyerSApril 8, 2018 at 11:54 PM

Contemporary “Hinduism” is neither a way of life NOR is it a "religion". It is

politically convenient legal ffiction representing a bouquet of Nationalities,
cultures and religions that share only a fading and almost extinct commonality
which is their heritage of Aryan (Bharatha Varsha) Law and the Law and
Education imparted by the Brahmanas.

Almost every heritage Temple that has now been confiscated with appurtenant
commonwealth and submerged into a politically convenient "secular" "way of
life" by the Indian State represents a unique religion and culture.

What is "Hindoo"? The name of a defunct nationality of Arya Brahmanas of the

Indus Valley, so named by their co – religionists of Persia during the Vedai
period that preceded their Avesthan (book) period, resurrected as a religion by
the British who added the suffix "ism" to fabricate a politically convenient Social
Engineering instrument and legal fiction to perpetuate alien rule.

As for "Sampradaya", "Matha" etc. these are all euphemisms to work around
the British made fiction that Hinduism is a religion. My religion is known as
Shroutha Smartha and has nothing in common with most so called Hindoos.
Incidentally, those under the British made Label of “Daalits” are essentially
Outlaws and do not share the commonality of descending from those who
adhered to Aryan Law with Brahmana law and education givers, Hence the
anxiety of the PANGOLIN* Rapeublic to cover this up.

*Note: PANGOLIN: An enemy of India who believes in inequality under law,

exceptions to the rule of law and persecution of some for the benefit of others.
At present, the sole purpose of the Indian Republic, Constitutional or otherwise,
is to pamper and provide for certain constitutionally preferred sections of society
who the British found useful to hold and exploit India at the cost of those who
the British hated and persecuted. The Pangolin is a creature that is unique to
India and feeds on ants that are known in nature to be industrious and hard
working if not quite as fruitful as bees who flee to better climes. (PANGOLIN is
an acronym for the Periyar-Ambedkar-Nehru-Gandhi-Other (alien) Religions-
Communist Consensus that usurped the British Mantle and has worn it with elan
to loot, plunder, and rape India since 1921 and re write History and laws to their
exclusive benefit since 1947)
 Reply

13.

SuchindranathAiyerSApril 8, 2018 at 11:59 PM

Note: Bharatha Varsha (Bharatha's Rains aka Laws aka Rule aka Empire)was
originally Bharatha Khanda (or Bharatha's part)or Arya Varsha (Arya's Rains
aka Laws aka Rule aka Empire)
Reply

14.

SuchindranathAiyerSApril 9, 2018 at 11:43 AM

Zende means "grateful to be alive". Avesthan is the archaic written Persian that
followed the oral Sanskrit Vedic period. Like Budhist Pali replaced Sanskrit on
the Indo-Gangetic plains
Reply

Replies
 1.
TemplarSlayerAugust 1, 2019 at 10:28 PM

Now that's better.

Reply

15.

AnonymousApril 11, 2018 at 12:49 AM

This comment has been removed by the author.

Reply

16.

AnonymousAugust 23, 2019 at 3:03 AM

A question ,in Achaemenid Empire the official language was the aramaic , in
such conditions what was the the religious language and what sources can
prove this .Thank you '
Reply

17.

AnonymousMay 1, 2020 at 6:43 PM

what the fuck are you smoking?

Reply

18.
AnonymousJuly 21, 2020 at 3:20 AM

There are too many falsification about iranian history, since we know it was
created by English/British diplomats while their colonisation era in India. And
one of the most special name behind iranian history is Sir John Malcolm. Even
Parthian empire, Sassanids and Achaemenids are all debatable empires,
exactly, their iranian bakcground is debatable.
Reply

Loading