1
Journey of civilizations
When we speak of civilization, we mean the
materialistic and spiritual expressions of the people living in certain
regions. From ancient times, many civilizations have flourished in different
parts of the world. Some have collapsed to give a way to new ones or merged
with the mighty civilizations or have changed with the time but showing its
continuity of basic elements through its course.
How do we differ between civilizations? What
criterions normally do we use to differentiate one civilization from others? We
normally classify the civilizations by their architecture, religious beliefs,
war and other technologies, script, languages, mythologies, burial practices
those indicate life-after-death concepts. There could be some other aspects but
what I have enumerated are major those easily can help us to differentiate the
civilizations. When we speak of Egypt, Pyramids automatically appear before our
eyes and when we talk of the Indus-Ghaggar civilization seals, planned cities,
brick-paved roads and great baths do flash in an instant in our minds. So,
architecture becomes a major part of our general classification of the
civilizations.
We know about some of the languages spoken in the
ancient civilizations, thanks to the written records and their decipherments,
same time we do not know what were the languages spoken in many civilizations
for lack of the written records or inability to decipher their script in an
absence of Rosetta stone. Though we may have deciphered records, we may not
know even how the language was pronounced. Indus script and linier A of Greeks
are fine examples of undecophered scripts. We may find that the scripts of
ancient civilizations, though mostly an independent development, their
influences still are detectable in the areas of shadow civilizations. Such as
Greek early script was introduced to them by Phoenicians which was further
modified to suit the various dialects of Greeks.
We also are aware that every civilization had
independent religious concepts and mythologies.
We also find from the archaeological layers the changes in the pantheon
of the deities and their changed priorities and evolution in the ritualistic
priorities. However, some superficial similarities, too, do occur baffling the
archeologists and linguists prompting them to propose theories of “outside
influences” caused by migrating people. There are examples here for such
theories those have been fought viciously by the scholars. For example, from
eighteenth century onwards Aryan Invasion Theories were in vogue those claimed
migrations ns of mighty Aryan Race from some hypothetical original homeland,
riding in spoke-wheeled chariots, subjugating other contemporary races
enforcing their “polished language” and culture over them. The theory did no
good to the world. Rather the world experienced genocide and destructive Second
World War. Later, the theory was replaced with dispersals of the Proto
Indo-0European speakers from some hypothetical original homeland However;
underlined meaning remained the same, racist and supremacist.
However, we cannot attribute all the time such
migrating hoards for causing immense impact on the already established
civilizations. We should not forget here that the pre-civilization era, when
agriculture was not yet invented and humans in bands were roaming in the known
regions for search of the food and grazing lands for his cattle. This was the
period that roughly begins from 60,000 BC and continues till 10,000 BC. In this
vast span of the time, human beings learnt many things…language was one of
them. Faculty to speak is as old as hundred thousand years. From
proto-abstract-sounds meaningful words were developed, exchanged between the
tribes and thus multiplying to the rudimentary vocabulary. Since the human
transactions were limited, not so complex, language too was primary. All the
vocabulary did not comprise of independent innovations but some was accumulated
through the exchanges and borrowings as well. Not only vocabulary, the
religious concepts too did evolve during this era. The technologies, such as
stone weaponry, stone-utensils and bark or skin-clothing and artificial
shelters too were developed. The geographical sense and regional affinities too
must have been evolved in this transitional phase when he transgressed from
hunter-gatherer man to a pastoral man. About 40000 years ago we find sudden
cultural explosion across the globe that involved from jewelry making to
specific funeral practices. We cannot
attribute such cultural innovations taking place in single tribe and at a
single location but can attribute them to the continuous exchanges, imitations,
modifications and independent or joint advancements out of the need of the
human being. The stone weaponry is a common feature of all the human species
spread across the globe. It was not invention of any single tribe, but of all
the tribes of those times. The early inventions mostly have been out of the
grave necessity of survival against all odds.
Era of foragers must have been too interesting in
many aspects. First of all a vital question remains unsolved that whether early
humane first appeared on some certain place (e.g. Africa) and then later
dispersed to populate the globe or had it been the multi-location creation is a
hotly debated topic amongst scholars today. Though I support multiregional
model against Out of Africa theory which proposes single location model for it
has its own limitations loaded with Biblical Adam-Eve fantasies.
Anyway, there is no doubt that the early human was
forager. But the most important question would be how he must have been
deciding on which directions to move? How did he chart out his dispersal map
and what was his motivation? He mustn’t have roamed aimlessly to any direction
where he hoped for food and game. In all probabilities he must have known the
regions where he could find enough food and shelter. People always accommodate
with the known environments and the available food. The regional food habits
vary greatly even today. Then in ancient times such variation naturally would
be greater.
Early populations, about 60,000 years ago were far
limited, could be possibly one person per square kilometer at the most. The
earth was going through the Ice Age during those times. However, far remote and
climatically hostile regions, such as Antarctica and nearer regions to the
North Pole must have been avoided by him. He had formed bands, mostly
consisting of the blood related people. He soon must have learnt what was
edible and what was not. But the process wouldn’t have been that simple. He
would have tried various vegetation, fruits and meat. After lot many accidents
or catching fatal diseases he would have carefully selected his diet. He must
have known soon which animal were dangerous and who weren’t! As we find
regional variety of flora and fauna and forestry, changing seasons and its
influence on its growth, he too must have observed minutely the change in the
nature with changing seasons. Why his roaming must been limited to the known
regions is only because he must have preferred the places where he could find
known food and game…and even known tribes with whom they could establish
dialogue.
For the fear of unknown, he must have limited his
life within the known regions where he could feel safety and assurance of
survival, is but natural.
But how far he could have been reaching? There is no
material proof available to indicate a single tribe’s journey, its original
place and its course of travel. However, there are suggestive hypotheses that
the some tribes had travelled across the oceans to populate remote islands in
ancient past. What forced them out of their place of origin or region may
remain speculative. It could be either because sudden climatic changes forced
them to leave the known regions or it was an eternal zeal of the human being to
know the unknown, risking life sometimes! However, it appears that the human
preferred his known geography for his survival and dared unknown in much unforeseen
circumstances.
The scholars do admit that the foraging communities
had lot of leisure time. What they needed from the surrounding was the food.
Working few hours a day would be enough for them. Rest of the time, unlike
other animal kind, there must have been attempts to communicate, making tools
and weapons from the stones and bones. Evenings they might have been dancing
with their early rudimentary vocal songs, may be meaningless yet with some
meaning they only could comprehend. The language, we can find, has roots in the
early life of the foragers.
While looking at the recorded archaeological civilizations,
we cannot limit our search at that point but have to go back at the earliest
era when the modern human being emerged on the earth and started thinking and
express. Forager man could think. He could differentiate between useful and
useless, fearsome and friendly. The elements of the early religion too can be
attributed to the foragers. From archaeological proofs we find the burial
practices getting more and more systematic and elaborative. He must have some
ideas about life after death otherwise the burial practices wouldn’t have been
felt necessary. He must have envisaged the good forces, invisible but to him
existent and so the bad forces. Among tribes they must have discussed
vehemently on them, creating the mythologies out of their past experiences or
from the rudimentary legends flown to them. Need of the creating new words to
explain various actions and things and for deities, demons, variety of the
abstract forces and extant technologies and even flora-fauna thus was the
imminent necessity. The cave paintings of Altamira (France) and Bhimbetka of
India give us clear hints of their life styles and weapons used in hunting,
their dances and their earlier domesticated animal. And most importantly an
immense urge of expression.
The tribal identities from kinship must have become
stronger with the strengthening of the tribal egos. The totems were the early
identities of the tribal clans. The struggles over power within the tribe must
have caused the branching of the tribes or bloodbath within the tribes. However
overall population must have been fluctuating for the wars, epidemics and
natural calamities to which as yet they had no cure o remedy for. Many tribes
could have become extinct. Otherwise, it is affirmatively has been proved from
the fossil organisms that the health of the foragers was often better than of
the people of early farming communities.
The average life expectances, though low, but there have been evidences
that many persons lived up to sixty-seventies.
However, no matter whether the first appearance of
the human was a single location phenomena or multi-regional event, the fact is
the territorial consciousness in the foragers was a phenomenon that became
foundation of the early civilizations.
How they envisaged the geography? Did they know
distant regions? Had they been roaming round the earth during foraging era? We
must look at the facts that the foragers had limited their roaming in the known
territories and frequently came across the same tribes. Every tribe naturally
had multiple tribal contacts thus sharing the information of the far away
tribes. We can call it ‘Territorial Tribal Culture’ those had many features in
common. Asia, Africa and Europe are the continents those are interconnected and
yet isolated for their peculiar geographical features. Hence naturally the
continental interaction would be far less, but not that insignificant as
well. Every continental tribe’s internal
and external interaction naturally would be in a varying degree. The exchanges,
linguistics and of technological advances or imitations did spread across the
territories because of this. We find many archaic words common in many parts of
the world because of such exchanges. However, the fact remains that though
there are many common words, the civilizations could not retain original
pronunciations and at many a places, meanings. That way, there is no linguistic
root to any word because there is no way to find where the word originated and
what it was meant originally! There are so many Vedic words in Vedic language
those yet remain in use but the meaning is altered drastically. Today when we
speak of PIE language origins we speak of the history of just 4-5 thousand
years. History of any language is far far remote than this period. There is no
reason to claim supremacy for any language because languages do not emerge from
any supreme mind but the imminent needs of the mind.
As far the known world of the individual tribe, what
we understand from the history that the people did not know farthest regions.
They didn’t know at all the geographical end of their known world. They thought
the region intimately known to them was center of the universe. The territorial
psychologies are interesting that exhibit specific patterns. Those psychologies
we find reflected in their religions, mythologies and architecture and so many
other cultural aspects. We find From Avesta, Rig Veda and Egyptian scriptures
that they knew the world, about five hundred square miles from their respective
locations. They mythologized the territories those were heard of but not seen.
River Rasa (Tigris) appears in Avesta and Rig Veda as mythical boundary of
their world. Alexander on his mission to India did think that beyond India the
world ends. Every civilisation had its own eerie idea about size of the
universe. Hence the claims that new
people appeared to effect cultural changes in any civilization are not only
doubtful but meaningless. The fact is there is no concept like “New People”
does exist on this earth.
Although, as a human being, it is but natural that
the fundamental features of the psychological functioning would be the same,
same time we clearly can see that the psychological patterns changing with
every region. The patterns reflect in the culture, in the language and
spirituality of every regional culture. No matter how geographically societies
are close still speaking varying dialects.
We should call it “Regional Psychology”. We should also find out why the
regional psychologies differ to such extent even within the people of same
ethnicity and religions! Anyway, we
shall deal with this in more detail in the next chapters.
Agricultural
revolution
Invention of the agriculture has been a turning
point in the life of early foragers those had turned to pastoral society by
20,000 BC. Agriculture changed his life dramatically. Although, because of
excavated archaeological proofs, it is believed that the agriculture was
invented around 7000+ BC, the agro-era in reality can be even older by few more
millenniums than that of the assumed era.
We do not know when exactly it came to the mind of
the pastoral people that he needs not to wander for for food and fodder, but he
could produce it. He must have observed the cycle of the nature, seeds
sprouting to grow like the same vegetation. He would have come across the
variety of wild plants of maize or other food. He could have actually consumed
them. The knowledge of re-growing of the same vegetation after showers must
have been acquired from ancient times. He even could have applied it for the
fruit-yielding trees by sowing the seeds and would have observed for years in
awe the growth of it, if spared by nature. However, it seems he didn’t think he
actually could produce food by systematic application of the cultivation.
However at about, say ten thousand years ago, there
seems sudden rise in agricultural practices across the globe. The Mehrgarh and
Zagros sites are the archaeological sites those are examples of the oldest
agriculture practices. What could be reasons for almost all the tribes turned
to agriculture? ? It couldn’t have been new invention, the agriculture. Could
have been practiced arbitrarily, may be as a fun. But he didn’t practice it as
a mean of livelihood, or at the least it would seem so. We have to find what
exactly could have happened that the suddenly foragers/pastorals turned to the
agriculture and led to the settled life.
Climatic
changes
There is a close association of the climatic changes
in rise and falls of the human civilizations. It has not only forced human
being to change its ways of living but cultural patterns as well. Recent examples are the decline of
Mesopotamian, Indus and Chinese civilization and others those came to decline
about 1800 BC because of the gradual climatic change. The living patterns did
change because of sudden rise into the aridity which forced humans to look for
new ways to survive under changed climatic scenario.
We have to look into the climatic history of the
earth. The human being of those times had experienced cold era which is known
as Ice Age. The period was more hostile, difficult for survival and
cultivation. However, the genetic makeup of fossilized bones, dating back about
37,000 years ago, found in Western Russia suggests the continuous history of
the Europeans. However, ice age, it seems, kept populations limited. But people
largely lived in the same areas during the ice age and after. This is evident
from the DNA of Kostenki man that was similar to the 24000 year old boy found
in central Siberia. This also indicates
to the fact that the people were more rooted with their known territories
despite of the climatic conditions.
About 12 thousand years ago or little before the
Holocene age began. This was warmer age. The ice melt caused rising of the sea
levels, by about almost 115 feet’s. Some animal species became extinct because
they could not cope up with climate change. There could have been population
loss during the transitional phase of climate change. Human was forced to
change his life style. The innate urge of the survival made him to find new
ways for livelihood. Our ancestors were product of Ice Age. They had
experienced glacial era and had adjusted their life style accordingly with it.
However, the change in the nature, though not
sudden, must have forced him to look for new ways for survival. It is quite
possible that the humans would have extended their settlements to earlier uninhibited
regions for end of the Ice Age would have emptied many regions covered by ice
caps.
The beginning of the agrarian life coincides with
the beginning of Holocene. This means this era has very significant and
meaningful in our ancient history. Agriculture helped early agrarians to settle
down in respective regions wherever he could permanently cultivate. The river
valleys were natural choice for assurance of water supply and fertile lands.
This was a revolutionary turn in human history. It dramatically changed his
lifestyle and social references. In real sense he got rooted to the land. The
territories or the regions he used to be wander about already had become
further limited because of the agriculture.
As humans started settling down, except for
neighboring settlers, his exchanges of the cultural advances became limited.
The settled life demanded for various inventions and innovations. Implements
for the agriculture, permanent houses and safeguards would have been his first
need to adjust with the new life. Early architecture, crops, various utensils,
potteries etc. were outcome of the needs of the people of those times. He also
would have needed new vocabulary to express this change and new innovations.
However, this transitional phase too wouldn’t have
been easy. The wars, aggressions to occupy fertile lands by the large or
aggressive tribes would have been evident. Many smaller or weak tribes would
have been subjugated, even enslaved or made extinct. The tumulous situation
persisted for long period of time in human history. Even the otherwise peaceful
sounding Indus civilization had to build fortification walls around their
cities for protection.
10,000 BC onwards till 5000 BC we find the growth of
the rural settlements all over the globe. Many such ancient village sites are
found and excavated. Gobelki Tepe, Nevali Kori, Jhusi etc are such ancient
sites. Many more has been erased from
the pages of the history for either repetitive use of the same sites for new
constructions or completely ruined because of their abandonment or bringing
them in use for other purposes after they were vacated. However, the excavated
sites give us fair idea about the technological advances of those times.
As the complexities of the settled life grew, the
languages too took mostly independent course based on the linguistic
accumulations from the wandering past. However, it clearly seems, this caused
to give rise to the net of the languages. Many words, concepts, technological
features, epithets, personal names to plant names, those occur in the various
pan-territorial languages have roots in the remote past of the human being. We
cannot solve the mystery of such linguistic similarities by formulating
“migration” theories but by the simple understanding of the human past.
Agriculture and related technical inventions added to the vocabulary. Numerics
must have advanced in this era. In a way we can call it a linguistic explosion!
Anyway, human beings
gradually started settling around 10000 BC. The archeological proofs of early
settlements and agriculture have been surfaced almost everywhere. In India,
Kenoyer has shown from the archeological finds that the people of Indus-Ghaggar
Civilization traded with the people of Iranian plateau since 7000 BC. Kenoyer
asserts that, “….These data indicate that
foragers were present in the exact locations where we later see the emergence
of settled agro-pastoral communities during the Early Food Producing Era
(7000-5500 BCE) and the Regionalization Era (5500-2800 BCE).” In Gangetic
plains the agrarian settlements have been discovered that too date back to the
same period, or even earlier to that. In Zagros region of Iran archeologists
have recently discovered the proofs of agriculture that dates back to 12000 BC.
In short, we can surmise that by 10,000 BC, barring few tribes, human being was
almost settled on the globe in the respective territories. We do not trace any
massive migrations taking place after that. Migrations are not a new phenomena
occurring in the human world. It is widely assumed that from the ancient times,
human race has been moving from one place to other in the search of the food.
Geographical spread of the human beings is attributed as a reason to this.
However, the human beings had started settling down in different regions in the
Mesolithic period (approx 15,000 years BC).
C.K. Chase-Dunn
(Institute for Research on World-Systems (IROWS), University of California,
states, “The earliest sedentary societies
were of diversified foragers in locations in which nature was bountiful enough
to allow hunter gatherers to feed themselves without migrating. These first
villagers continued to interact with still nomadic peoples in both trade and
warfare. The best known of these is the Natufian culture of the Levant,
villagers who harvested natural stands of grain around 11,000 years ago. In
many regions, the largest villages had only about 250 people. In other regions,
there were larger villages and regions with different population densities were
often in systemic interaction with each other.”
The ambitious warring tribes might have moved to
make military expeditions, but largely the populations did not leave their
habitats, even if they were subjugated and enslaved. They, in course of the
time, changed their settlement patterns, vacated earlier settlements to move in
new and advanced ones. Towns and villages and temples or sanctuaries gradually
were developed. So far we have found one ancient sanctuary at Gobelki Tepe dating
back to 10th to 8th millennium B.C. This does mean that
collective concepts of religion started developing much earlier in almost every
region in unique way.
Food produce
in fertile lands, with help of the advanced farming equipments and innovative
ideas of canals, grew to phenomenal extent. The huge granaries found in IVC
stands proof for the surplus agricultural produce. Trade of the artifacts, food
and other agricultural products, such as cotton, begun with other distant
civilizations. Indus trade with Mesopotamia, Middle East and Iran is
established by the archaeological finds.
It can be said that the cultural contact with
Semitic and so-called Indo-European speaking territories through trade was
simultaneous. It is a wonder, even then
the scholars want to deny Semitic influence over North-Western languages and
claim influence of the so-called IE languages. It is equally possible that the
North-Western languages of those times had some influence on Semitic languages.
However, such influence means only the exchange of vocabulary and some cultural
concepts. The fundamental cultural traits, including languages remained
independent.
The civilizations thrived, reached their heights of
the glory and because of the climatic changes in the end of second millennia BC
the downfall began almost everywhere. It gave rise to the political upheavals.
It forced people to change their settlement and life patterns. The centers of
the urbanizations changed and moved to the wet regions. It does not mean the
people from arid regions moved to occupy new urban centers. They largely
remained in the same regions adapting to the changed socio-economic conditions.
The overview of the human journey tells us that the
territorial and regional consciousness in human being has very early traits.
The regions they occupied from early era left inerasable imprint in his
lingo-ethnic identity. It has nothing to do with the racial concepts. It was
land that helped evolve the human psychology and thus culture. The early
settlement patterns of the human being, though superficially same, in course of
the time, we find, every civilization acquired its own recognizable distinct
face.
After rise of the agrarian era, territorial
languages did not remain same. The religious practices and the pantheons of the
deities did not remain the same. Mythologies too took independent paths, though
the basic elements, such as division between good and evil and their epithets
had roots in their wandering past. Languages too started evolving independently
and rapidly, based on the accululated vocabulary and rudimentary grammar of his
territorial past. Ways of expressions changed with civilizations to
civilizations. The civilizations albeit were in contacts with each others ,
mostly for trade and in case of war like situations, but one civilization could
not erase the cultural past of the other, except notable exchanges. We find the
polity had developed to the extent that the written treaties between the two
parties to the war used to be signed. We have the proof of a peace treaty that
was signed between the Egyptian pharaoh
Ramses II, and the Emperor
Hattusilis III that dates back to 1258 BC. Though the earlier treaties have not
been surfaced as yet, in all probabilities many must have been executed across
the globe prior to this.
What we can understand from above is that the global
cultures started evolving about hundred thousand years ago. We find the traces
of his advances from, though rare, the findings from the ancient past. For
example we have 75000 year old engraved ochre chunks from South Africa
(Blombos), we have 60000 year old engraved ostrich eggshells from South Africa,
and also we have from all over the world the paintings in rock shelters that
contain geometric symbolism, suggesting the symbolic communication beginning
from about 40000 years ago. The symbols are repetitive and believed by the
scholars that they must have been communication symbols. Bhimbetka in Madhya
Pradesh of India too is a fine example of this where we find the early human
being expressing through art depicting day to day affairs, including his
hunting expeditions and dances.
The territorial sense in humans must have evolved
around 40,000 years ago or even earlier when they limited their wandering
within known geographies instead of roaming directionlessly. They must have
acquired knowledge of the regions, flora-fauna, animals, birds, climates and
the tribes as friends, foes or neutral, within the territories they knew.
From archeological evidences we can be certain that
the population distribution across the globe almost was completed by this time.
Later on the social cultures thrived almost independently. They were aware of
the neighboring and distant reachable civilizations, with which they traded the
essentials even risking the lives. We have proofs that the Indus people, known
as Melluha to the Mesopotamians, had established their trade colonies in
Mesopotamia. Such meaningful migrations and settlements in foreign lands may
have been a global practice of those times.
In course of the human history, we do not know for
sure exactly when faculty of languages emerged in human being. Many tend to
think that this phenomenon was accidental. However, we can safely say that when
cultural expression begun in form of the dance, rituals, painting and making
meaningful things from the natural resources, the faculty of language was
present. Rather, we can say that the first utterance of a meaningful word
started civilizing the human being. This was global phenomena. It could not be
the case that some hypothetical group developed the language first and then
caused its spread. However the present
theories propose the same illogical logic with confidence.
The Indo-European language theorists often claim
that the invention of the spoke-wheeled chariots and taming of the horses by
the PIE speakers made them superior over others and their aggressions or
migrations resulted in the formation of the IE language family. This is a
reckless, thoughtless and unhistorical claim that stands upon a flimsy
hypothesis. This is against the history of the civilizations. Rather net of the
languages was already formed when the earliest civilization era had begun! The
tribes were sharing basic vocabularies for over the millenniums while they were
on move within the known territories before they finally had started to settle
and there onwards took largely independent course of the linguistic
developments! Since the basics were almost similar, developed with joint
efforts, finding such common elements couldn’t have been a surprise at all! The
net of the languages was already in place.
Hence, the so-called Proto-Indo-European language family needed not any
dispersion of some group of the people that had supposedly developed that
language independently to spread it with the migration. History of the
languages is far older than the assumed date of the so called PIE speakers’
migration. It is an imaginary theory created with political supremacist
motives, nothing else. Rather we need to find, still, why there are different
linguistic and cultural groups across the globe?
However, we can note from the excavated pre-history
that the civilizations were prospering almost in every continent and
territories and regions almost simultaneously exhibiting their own creations
and innovations. Every civilization had their own face and characteristics to
speak of, exhibiting their distinct identities. They had their independent
religious beliefs and most importantly the languages. Roots of the languages,
though common in every territory, the languages of the every civilizations
differed significantly, almost unintelligible except of those spoken in
neighboring regions. Also we can find overlapping zones of the languages and as
we proceed deeper in some regions, like an island, we come across some entirely
different language which cannot be classified in the neighboring language
groups.
Not only this, with every region, we find
significant changes in the cultures, no matter whether linguistic or
architectural or religious beliefs, though largely they fall under a common
single civilization. The pronunciation patterns too change significantly, no
matter even if they are speaking same dialect! We can notice easily the
patterns of the lifestyle changing with region to region. Many factors
associated with the culture thus can be observed taking noticeable forms with
the change of the geographical region.
But we have to think on, why so?
Why we do find closely adjoined regions exhibiting
distinct cultural features including languages? Why cultural patterns must be
changing though the people are of same ethnicity and language families? Why,
although the religion is same, the regional religious beliefs, practices and
the way of the expressions do change? Why some of the mythologies regionally
too differ significantly though they have single source of origin?
We have seen the journey of the civilizations,
though brief and cursory, has ancient roots. The known civilizations of the
globe exhibit their independent expressions through religions, architectures,
settlement patterns and languages. Such distinctive features of the cultures
still do survive in the era of the globalization.
There shouldn’t be any doubt that, it certainly is
the regional psychology of the people that exhibits through their cultural
behaviors. We need to examine what makes the people of the certain regions to
behave culturally different than the other regions. Why the languages do change
significantly with the regions. Rather, we shall probe further whether every
region has its own qualities that decide human expressions or whether the
present linguistic theorists are right.
*
Chapter
2
Culture
and General Psychology
The culture is material and spiritual expression of
the people. Whatever human society converts from the natural resources to
useful objects and develops ways of expressions forms part of the culture.
Rather culture is an artificial creation of the material utilities those are
expressed through the human mind and action. Culture is not just individual but
a collective expression. Cultural psychologists often discuss on how the
culture enters into psychological process of the individuals. But let us not
forget here that the culture plays dual role…culture influences psychological
processes of the individuals and the collective psychologies make out the
culture. So, in a way, both are interdependent.
As per the linguists
and psychologists, the language is an innate need of human race, it is adequate
to consider that the language evolutions, their exterminations and
re-evolutions or blend of own languages with other languages of neighboring
people with social mutations has been the constant process in human societies
of the globe. We find similar words having hypothetically similar roots in
different languages and conclusions of the scholars that one language
influenced the other have marred our linguistic history. We find several
similar words in most of the languages but the meanings attached to them are
opposite or entirely different.
“Language consciousness is probably identical with every human
meta-consciousness and may therefore play a significant role in the control
processes effected in the human subject by consciousness,” states Jerzy
Banczerowski, a noted linguist.
We have seen in the last chapter how the human
civilizations did evolve through the long passage of the time. We also have
seen that the migrations or expansions do not solely cause the spread of the
languages. Though almost all the cultural phenomena’s are almost contemporary
in every age, the ways of expressions in different regions are remarkably vary.
We can attempt to attribute such differences to the available resources in
every region. For example, the Indus region lacked in the stone quarries for
the alluvial plains, created by the perennial river sediments. They used
initially mud bricks, followed by burnt bricks in later times to build their
homes and fortifications. Human being used the natural resources available
around to meet his needs. We find stone used to build ancient settlements
wherever it was abundantly available. Still, we find the settlement patterns
differ significantly. It is pertinent to note here, using available natural
resources is not a surprise, but the way he distinctly used them to meet his
needs is surprising. The archaeological proofs of same era across the globe
exhibit how one civilization differed from another. The settlement patterns of
BMAC are not same as found in Andronovo culture or any other culture
contemporary to it. Though Indus civilization was in close contact with
Mesopotamians, we do find from archaeological remains that the settlement
patterns and construction styles significantly differed. Both the civilizations
used seals, still there is remarkable difference in both, in style, symbolism
as well as in language and script.
The religious beliefs, languages, architecture,
mythologies and literature…we do not find any close relationship except some
vague similarities in their original core. Though some mythical or folk stories
have travelled across the regions, they have been modified everywhere, adding
the elements of local psyche. It is human mind, sometimes thought to be
functioning universally alike, but except for a need to express and make life
comfortable, in every geological region, it courses in its own way. The
regional or territorial expressions differ significantly. What exactly makes
this change in psychological patterns?
For example, a myth of Vritra slaying is
considered to be very antique and must have its origin when human being was
still in savage state. However, the myth has taken different shapes though the
core of the myth remained the same, i.e. God or Man slayed a dragon. Verethragna of Avesta is thought to be
associated with “Vritrahan” of Rigveda as both the words seem to be closely
related, but the myths associated with them are not. Avesta’s similar myth is
associated with Traitana. Similar myth in Greek mythology appears in the
form of Hercules-Cacus form.
What this would mean that the myth has travelled
across the regions taking its own local forms. The same would also appear true
with the myths from Katha Saritsagar. M.
Gaster states that, “Happily there are no geographical, religious or National
boundaries in that land of imagination. The whole mankind dwells therein……..”
Further he elaborates that finding the provenance of the fantasies, legends or
myths may be impossible for many a places people think alike or the stories
travelled from word of mouth by the bards, travelers or soldiers retold in
advanced or modified forms. Vritra slaying
myth could be poetic imagination of eternal struggle between good and evil.
Interestingly Vritra of Veda is son of Danu, which means water or
fog. This myth stands apart from the other myths, though similar in the
struggle of a god or man with dragon. World mythologies are filled up with
similar stories though the details do differ. Trying to connect them with
hypothetical movement of some stock of the people may be wrong as there
wouldn’t have been so difference in details and persons/deities associated with
the similar-sounding myth. This applies to languages as well, because the way myths
are creation or adaptation of the specific psychologies, the basic element, the
languages also are creation of the cumulative human psychology.
The question is why languages differ significantly
the way myths differ in their construction with change of the regions!
Also,
geographic subcultures can be defined with its typical topography, climate and
geological characteristics those heavily influence the attitudes and behaviors
formed as a result of psychological bounds. An individual moving into a new
geographic location will not generally adopt the geographically bound attitudes
and behavior. (The Influence of Geographic Subcultures in the United States,
Kenneth A. Coney, Arizona State University) This simply does mean that
the psychology is closely associated with the region a person lives in. While
moving from one to other geographic region, his originally structured
psychological patterns hardly do change. How these regional psychological
traits do form? We also have seen that the genes carry the regional markers, no
matter what percentage remains in course of the time.
Culture and psychologies are interdependent. True.
Individuals living in a culture are influenced by their surrounding culture.
The mind is impacted by the surroundings he lives in. Culture penetrates his
psyche making some influence on his individual behavior. True. Culture and
psychology thus is interrelated. However cultural psychologists do not give
heed to the major question why a culture develops in specific manner? Why it becomes so distinct from others? What
are the forces those govern the minds of the people living in a particular
region and why they generally exhibit their ethos in almost similar way?
We must differentiate here between the individual
psychologies and collective psychologies. In a way individual human lives in
the ocean of psychologies! Though individual psychology has its dependent
special characteristics, they exhibit, in normal way, characteristics of
general psychologies of the region.
There are always some common traits those are found
in particular set of the people living in common region. Western people, the
psychologists agree, are more individualistic. The western psychologists treat
psychology as a tool to solve the individuals’ psychological problems. The
individualism reflects very well in the psychologists itself. Naturally
cultural psychology, though an emerging branch, rather is focused on effects of
the cultures on the individual psychologies. Cross-cultural psychologies also
tread the same path. However we have to explore the collective psychologies
those reflect in overall cultural expressions including languages/dialects and
the way they are spoken.
Europeans started thinking of the world, after 16th
century out of their expansionist need of the time. Before, to them, the
unknown world was rather mythical. Columbus’ account of the new world he came
across is mythical. Megasthanese’ account of India, in third century BC, too
was too mythical. Rather mythologizing the material world that they encountered
was a mythical phenomenon to them. Rather, we can say, it was almost a
universal general psychology to see or express everything in mythical form that
was barely or superficially known. However, the patterns of myth-making were
not similar everywhere. And those traits still are surviving in human
being.
After era of enlightenment, Europe became
technologically advanced and started looking more practically at rest of the
world. In a way we can call it a cultural shift. The cultural shift caused by
the collective minds those wanted to see the world differently and exploit the
world to their benefit. We need to differentiate here between spiritual culture
and materialistic culture. Materialistic culture may change with the
technological advances or economic prosperities or downfalls, but again the
material culture, though utilitarian, the spiritual traits of the culture are
too hard to change. However, we have an explanation how spiritual traits are
changed and are discussed in next chapters.
In this period Europeans looked at the other people
of the globe rather in contempt. They divided the world in races like Semitics,
Aryans, Black, brown and yellow. The racial egotism, that always was part of
their psychologies exploded because they came at advantageous stage because of
technological advances. Actually they had loathed Jews and Muslims from
historical times. The religious struggle they had in historical times with
Muslims and Jews now changed to racial struggle. Rise of Aryan theory was in fact
an outcome of their present technological advances those politically proved the
Europeans superior over all other races. The supremacist psychological traits
are always hidden in the inferiority complexes those form the part of the
subconscious collective psychology.
The racial categorization of the humans living
across the globe was an insane idea, but creation of the Europeans. In a way it
was collective explosion of the inferiority complex of the Europeans of 18th
century. It is not yet subsided as still they are on a hunt to search for their
original homeland! The people those are confused of their own roots are
certainly pitiable! But Aryan Invasion Theory or present Indo-European language
Theory and spread of the IU languages are still is a hotly debated issue.
But this phenomenon is directly related with the
collective psychology. Every society living in different regions have
characteristically distinct psychologies that sometimes clash. Cross-cultural
psychologies are responsible for such clashes.
So, considering above points, as the cultural
psychologists propose that the culture penetrates individual and responds
according to his individual psychology may be correct. “Theory of others” comes
true when a cultural group confronts other cultural group/s.
We need to think and elaborate over why, first of
all, independent cultural groups evolve? Why the collective identities are
needed or developed, no matter even if religious? Religion is one of the parts
of the culture. How cultures do change suddenly or gradually? How we can
differentiate British people from the Germans? Are their ways of thinking
similar? They are not, we know for sure!
Also there are forced cultures. Forced cultures
would mean attack on individual and collective psychologies. We need to think,
how a human being would react to such cultural enforcements. Would he adapt to
the forced cultures or would create some other distinct cultures with admixture
of his own and enforced? Or will he adapt to the other cultures in his own way
without changing his thinking patterns?
We must keep in mind here that there is close
relationship between the regions of specific geological features of the regions
and the cultures developed in their folds. I will show in next chapters that
the way of thinking and expressions is interlinked with the geological
formations of the regions wherever the particular set of the people live for
generations. Superficially geographically connected lands may have entirely
different group of language speaking people with their unique culture setting
them apart from their close neighbors.
Geological features include geomagnetism, local
gravitation, chemistry of the rocks and soil, altitudes and the formations
beneath the crust of earth. The people living in the company with these
features, eating food yielded from the same soil and drinking water from the
rivers and wells that is having flavor of specific dilated minerals/compounds
existent in the land that has its own combinations, a result of the specific
geology of specific region. All this makes inevitable impact on the physical
features and psychology of the people living in specific geologically formed
regions. There are sufficient proofs to show relationship between geology and
general psychology of the people, which we shall see in next chapters. But first, let us consider present theories
on creation of the languages and their spread.
*
3.
Linguistic Theories
There are various
theories those deal with the origin of the languages and their spread. We will
take an overview of some most debated theories in academic circles.
Linguistic psychology
or psychology of the languages is an interdisciplinary branch that deals with
the psychological and neurobiological factors those enable humans to acquire,
use, comprehend, utter and produce the language. Its area is limited to
cognitive science as it moreover deals with how the language is processed in
the brain and the meaning derived and expressed thereof. Moreover, it deals
with a major question how the child acquires and comprehends the language. The
language production is a factor that deals with how people produce language,
either in written or spoken form, which can be comprehended by others. To
convey meaning language produced should be rule governed otherwise the language
spoken or written may not be able to convey what the speaker intended.
In short, linguistic
psychology deals with peripheral objectives but does not try to touch the core
of the very subject i.e. origin of the languages. It is limited to the
cognitive science and deals with the associated issues about learning and
speaking of the languages.
Chomsky believes that
the language is an innate faculty of the humans, making them distinct from
other animals. He also postulates the universal grammar that makes child
understand the complex nature of the language in early age. He also proposed
that in remote past some random mutation took place,
maybe after some strange cosmic ray shower, which reorganized the brain,
implanting a language organ in an otherwise primate brain. Some linguists posited that the languages must have emerged in
primates those gradually developed with increase in brain volume over the ages.
Broca's and Wernicke's areas in the brain have been considered to be
responsible for the languages. However, it was learned later that various parts
of the brain participate while producing and uttering the language, so we
cannot point out a specific region of the brain responsible for the language.
The fact is brain collectively participates in creation, uttering and
comprehending the language with help of the assisting organs.
There is no doubt
that the origin of the languages is mostly attributed to the need of
communication. Proponents of continuity theory, such as Pinker, hold that the
language is being mostly innate and some hold that it has developed from animal
conversation of primates. A few, like Anderson, believe that the language was
invented only once and that all modern spoken languages, being descendent, are
somehow related to each other.
Though there are
various other theories floating around as well, we have taken overview of the
major theories those have been prominent at the present. We can easily
determine that the main question of the origin remains unanswered because most
of the theories are speculative.
Humans have ability
to think and produce complex sounds because of his developed larynx. Other
animals too have larynx that produces certain meaningful sounds, cognizable
with their pitch of sounds and actions. They too pass on certain message,
deliver expressions to some extent. Unlike Humans other animals lack in
cohesive thinking process and memory that could be a limiting factor for
non-development of the languages in other animals. Or also it may be the fact
that we the human beings are unable to comprehend the animal language because
it might have totally different structure and sound waves indiscernible to us
and because it does not need words and grammar but sound frequencies to make
their specific language.
It can be postulated
that the faculty of thinking emerged first in human brain which helped him to
construct meaningful language. Complexity of the language developed with the
growing complexities of the life in far later course. We have seen in earlier
chapter that the invention of the agriculture forced him to invent new
vocabulary and grammar to convey the complex world he newly had entered. His
early language suddenly lost meaning but on the foundation of the same roots he
expanded his linguistic horizon. He needed, no matter how rudimentary,
mathematics as well. With this advancement not only vocabulary grew, the
grammar took complex form.
The earliest journey
was from sounds coupled with gestures to primary words devoid of any grammar.
It sufficed his early needs. Because of developed larynx, he easily could
produce or imitate sounds from nature and other animal kind with independent
sounds. This must have amazed him at the early stage, which he turned to a
useful tool, i.e. language.
Word is a sequence of
sounds. How early human could have decided certain sequence of sounds uttered
by one delivers some certain meaning? Language is to be understood by others
and to the speaker of it, if not, it is meaningless. It cannot make a language
in absence of the meaning.
Here we come across
the social or collective mind. People living in certain land (or geography)
possess a certain set of mind to which we call general psychology. Universal
mind made human being to develop languages from his imminent need of survival.
But languages did differ because there were sets of the people spread across
the globe living in their specific geographical and geological settings.
Specific thinking order in human belonging to certain set could have recognized
easily what certain series of sounds meant. Language groups differ based on the
sequel of the sounds those form words and the grammar. This order is determined
by sequence in which the specific people do think. Thinking process of the
people living in certain regions determines their language which is always
influenced and determined by the geological structures. The relationship
between the physical characteristics of the geology and human mind is thus
eternally formed that exhibits in the cultural diversities.
Specific order of the
thinking depends on the general psychology of the people among whom the
particular language is developed. Choices of sequence of sounds to make a
certain word that has specific meaning differ from language to language. The
order of the words set to make a meaningful sentence, grammar; too do differ
because it is influenced by the general psychology of particular set of the
people.
The cognitive process
of people living together in similar geological and geographical conditions
becomes universal though there are definite geographical variations in the
languages, to which we call “group languages”. Language is a manifestation of
the collective psychology. With the
growing complexities of the life languages become complex, it gets modified,
polished, perfected and transformed over the time hence it undergoes various
changes. Even today in tribal societies where lifestyle is less complicated
their languages too are simple. Even some languages do not need tenses or
genders.
Language is an expression of the inner self of
the human being. Word comes later, meaning comes first, or opposite also
happens to which we can call innate ability of the human being to process the
language. Human thinks and thinking process takes place in biological or
neurological language in the brain which later is converted into certain
meaningful series of sounds, pauses and full stops. The brain processes it
before it is uttered. However we are not aware of the language in which brain
thinks and processes the language. However, we can call it “Neurological
Language.”
In development of
early languages we also find hand of ritualistic needs in development of the
languages.
We have little
proofs, except material culture, to understand how and what early human could
have been thinking. However, around 40,000 years ago, we find cultural
explosion taking place across the globe. We have many proofs from the excavated
finds to show that elaborate burials, pottery and ornaments were part of their
life. The concepts of early beauty and eternal curiosity and threat of the
death can be understood from these remnants. From cave paintings of Altamira to
Bhimbetka, we can see while fighting with the odds he was entertaining himself
with art and dance. Innate need of expressing the self and thinking about life
and afterlife is evident from such proofs. Material culture and languages go
hand in hand in every human civilization.
Michael Maystadt (Illinois State University) says
that around this time anatomically humans started to behave and think like
modern humans.
Origin of the
language is not an isolated phenomenon. It is a collective process of social
mind of the people residing in certain geographical areas. Because it is
geography that decides social mind and so its expressions, the language is the
cumulative outcome of it. As a universal mind acts the same, every group of the
people has developed languages, in their own way. Influence of territorial
elements clearly exhibits in human language and culture. In similar
territories, adjoining or distant, having common geological features we find
different languages, but as their basic structure is somewhat similar,
linguists we set it in some or other group of the languages, but this is a
misleading attempt.
We have to understand
this because it has been constantly postulated that the language families have
a single ancestor source language that emerged in the distant past in certain
hypothetical tribe to spread later because of the human movements.
Suppose, a group of the people living within the
certain geographical boundaries move away to settle in new territories what
would be the status of their language? The question is peculiar. Though the
fact is the people or tribes wandered in known territories, but there were also
some tribes that may have settled in the land beyond to their known horizons.
In an order to establish communication they would have learned the local
languages that could have impacted their own vocabulary and grammar. Movement
of the people is not always a natural instinctive travel but need of the
survival. Either they settle in the respective lands permanently or return back
to their homeland when they think situation back home is right. If they stay
their permanently what happens to their own language or if they come back to
their homeland what is change in their language? We have no proof to explain
what compelled early PIA speakers to migrate in different directions. We even
do not know from where they came to that hypothetical location and hat was
their original language. From few skeletal remains we have extracted genes and
have formulated a theory that speaks about the linguistic history of a group of
people when genes do not tell us what language they spoke!
But, even if we
consider the migration theory to be true, first we have to agree that from some
place, some group of the people, speaking a certain proto language did move in
many directions in batches and at different times. Wherever these groups
finally landed, those lands must have been occupied by different groups of the
people speaking some kind of their own language. These lands couldn’t be vacant
devoid of any population having their own language. To impact the languages of
the local people the newcomers must outnumber them or establish a permanent
rule over them to enforce language and culture upon them.
If we take the
Indo-European group of languages for example, we find its spread right from
Europe to most part of Asia. To make settlements in such a vast region, PIE
speakers, originally settled in any hypothetical homeland, should be too large
in number to impact the languages of the local people spread over that vast
region, no matter how they achieve this. Even if they had to invade such a vast
territory they would need enough trained manpower to wage wars and subjugate
all the populations. Even if we consider this was the case, in batches they
migrated in different directions in two or three waves, how could they leave
any significant mark to change the basic structure of the local languages,
unless they outnumber them? And if they waged wars, subjugated people and
enforced their language and customs why there is not even a slightest single
proof has yet been surfaced? Could it be possible to cause such drastic change
without changing the root psychology of the locals? Even aggressive Islam or
the British those ruled half of the globe could not do this! Language of the
aggressors can become a second language of the subjugated people, but it cannot
completely change the foundation of the local languages.
Indian case is quite
typical. In the Indian subcontinent, there are two distinct language groups, IE
and Dravidian. Both the regions speaking two distinct languages are
geographically connected… not separated by sea or difficult mountain ranges. We
cannot imagine any reason why IE should stop its spread to southward of
Maharashtra and leave further regions uninfluenced.
Didn’t IE speakers
reach there any time in remote history?
It is not the case. So called IE speakers, whether migrating from
original homeland or from North India, sure had reached southern regions.
Still, we find no IE impact on those languages except for some exchange of
vocabulary.
The surprising fact
is, beyond these four Dravidian speaking States, in an island country, Shri
Lanka, separated by the sea, is spoken so called IE language. Surprisingly, the
people those could not influence the language of geographically connected
region could impact the language of the people living in the land far beyond,
but not in the land that lay between. This sounds like a fairy tale, isn’t it?
But proponents of the
PIE speakers’ migration theories staunchly believe in this wild hypothesis.
Some scholars think that the original migrants mingled with the local
populations, but left a linguistic genetic mark on the languages of the local
people; thereby making them part of the IE speaking group. However, they do not
answer, is there any linguistic gene that can pass on language through
biological contact? Had it been the case entire world would have become
linguistically tattered. This theory is racist and supremacist that mislead the
genuine linguistic history of the origin.
Coming back to the
questions, in human pre-history the populations were limited. Human beings had
settled in respective regions long before 10,000 BC. They
were semi-nomadic for their profession of cattle herding and primal
agriculture. In 2013, the archaeologists unearthed evidence of early
agriculture at a 12,000-year-old site in the Zagros Mountains in eastern Iran.
Mehrgarh site indicates that the human beings of that region knew agriculture
10,000 years ago. There may be some more unearthed sites those would indicate
the earliest agriculture on the globe. The fact remains that agriculture helped
human being to settle in the respective regions. Kenoyer asserts that, “….These data indicate that foragers
were present in the exact locations where we later see the emergence of settled
agro-pastoral communities during the Early Food Producing Era (7000-5500 BCE)
and the Regionalization Era (5500-2800 BCE).”
Population
movements were rare and that too occurring in extreme circumstances, such as
climatic disasters or epidemics. There were wars between the tribes, but they
too don’t suggest demographic migration of the subjugated tribes. Battle of ten
kings, described in the Rig Veda and the battles enumerated in Avesta suggest
that either victorious king would enslave the subjugated people or extract
heavy ransoms from them. Largely most of the tribes mentioned in the battle of
Ten Kings still reside in their respective regions and are known after them.
India has
experienced foreign aggressions since known history. From Greeks to Shaka, Hun,
Kushan invaded India. Few ruled temporarily, some for several centuries. They
too had their own distinct culture and languages. But could they impact on the
fundamental linguistic and cultural structure of northern India? There could
have been a slight exchange of vocabulary and cultural elements, but it could
not change basic soul of the culture and languages. Rather the invaders,
including Muslims, adapted to the local languages and cultures, which is
evident from the languages and symbols used on the coins of foreign rulers.
So, even
if the invaders are superior, they cannot enforce their languages. Albeit human
has an innate ability to learn other languages, either for political
compulsions or religious studies, but original language do not disappear unless
such speakers are too small in the number. The adaptation of any foreign
language also shows specific, distinct characteristics. Otherwise, though
people can learn as many languages, the basic structure of the own language
remains unaffected. The new languages learnt are pronounced in local fashion,
not same way they are originally spoken.
Pronunciation of Sanskrit, though a tight artificial language with set
rules of the utterance, is pronounced differently in every region of India. The
same applies to the English and Hindi.
There have
been rule of north Indian kings or emperors on southern States. There have been
cultural and commercial exchanges between south and north since the time
unknown. Still, we do not find any language impacting the other to change its
basic linguistic structure, except exchange of some vocabulary. Such exchanged
elements are seen being adopted suitable to the local forms.
The
migrations, invasions or rule of some people, thus cannot alter the structure
of the languages local people speak. Known examples from the history don’t
support this theory. Biological relationship with the group of languages is
thus a deliberately nourished hoax. It rather stresses the superiority of some
people those migrated and enforced their language upon the local people.
Even in
the group language every language falling in the same group significantly
differs from others. Every language has its own specialized vocabulary. The
group languages are said to be having genealogical relationship or the
languages those share common innovations those are not attributed to contact or
borrowing. Genealogically related languages present shared retentions, i.e.
features of the proto-language. But there are many features in same group
languages those are absent in proto or so-called common ancestor language.
Still, they find place in certain family because they are said to be
established with shared innovations, though not directly descending from the
common ancestor of the entire language family. Germanic language is a fine
example of this. Germanic language share vocabulary and grammatical features
those are believed to be not present in Proto Indo-European language. Rather
linguists believe that the innovations took place in proto-Germanic which was a
descendent of PIE.
We can see
clearly that the concept of the common ancestor language, shared features and
innovations in descendent family languages cannot be the explanation to the
formations of a language family. The group languages are categorized by common
features those can be artificially reconstructed in some proto language and if
not those are simply treated as innovations, but thought to be in descending
line with the common ancestor language.
However,
such proto-language does not exist today. No one knows what could be the exact
form of the languages our distant ancestors spoke. It is reconstructed from the
most common words, those are found in the hypothetical language family to
ascertain the original or source word/root. This is an artificially constructed
language; many a times with the help of computer programs those give different
results with different programs and hence mostly become speculative and
controversial. Rather the PIE language issue is treated by many scholars as a
theoretically disguised racist propaganda.
However,
we must admit that there are languages those have some or more common features
that form a family. To form a family there is no need of physical movement of
the people speaking some kind of proto-language.
We have
seen in the previous chapters that the faculty of languages in human is very
ancient and is related to the human psychology. The human genetics too is
influenced by the regional characteristics and do carry recognizable regional
markers.
Hence, we
can define net of the languages to which some call language family, with the
help of geological characteristics those influence psychology and language of
the people. We do not need to trace it back to the population movements of the
past as it has no proof to substantiate language-spread-theories and hence
remains controversial.
*
4.
Linguistic Psychology
Mind has physical existence. Mind is related with
brain as brain is center of the nervous system. We can precisely say that
without brain there cannot be any psychology. Human brain is a very complex
system which remains as yet to be understood completely. It is assumed that
there are about 86 billion neurons, each connected with ten thousand others.
Any physical alteration to the brain causes impact on mind, no matter whether
injury or drugs. Human intelligence is connected with evolution of the human brain
over the time.
One can say mind is product of the brain. The brain
functioning, though complicated, is mostly based on the bio-electric signals.
Rather functioning of neurons depends on bio-electricity generated in the body.
Mind is overall functioning of the overall excited cells in the brain that
varies or fluctuates with several physical reasons and thus changes
expressions, moods, understanding etc. It is now proven that body creates
electro-magnetic fields as well and also responds to outsider electro-magnetic
fields This includes neurons and muscle cells. With magnetic fields many
behavioral effects of different intensities have been reported. For example, a pulsed magnetic field
originally designed for spectroscopic MRI was found to alleviate symptoms in bipolar
patients while another MRI pulse
had no effect.
A whole-body exposure
to a pulsed magnetic field was found to alter standing balance and pain
perception in other studies. From this we can surmise that the human mind
(brain) responds to the electro-magnetic pulses as the brain too is a generator
of such signals of different intensities.
It has been
observed that sudden changes in geo-magnetism too, such as geomagnetic storms,
heavily impact on the minds of the people. It is not that all cells or neurons in the brain excited all
the time. There are many centers in the brain those alternatively get activated
with need and in response to the outer world; geo-magnetism is one of them.
Human
psychology is closely associated with brain and so the mind. Brain has physical
existence that is made of biological cells of variety of combinations. It has
specific chemistry, also called as neuro-chemistry, which helps overall
functioning of the brain, such as generating
movement, speaking, thinking, listening, regulating the systems of the body,
and countless others. Chemical changes in the brain, caused intentionally or
otherwise, impacts feelings and emotions. The overall thinking pattern of the
human being is entirely dependent on the bio-chemical and electro-magnetic
activity of the brain. In ordinary course, when there is no sudden change in
overall chemistry of the brain, the psychology of the person remains normal.
However, when we say
‘normal psychological condition’, we just want to explain, a psychology that is
not disturbing the state of individual mind in question and others. Till the
person exhibits accepted norms of the psychology, in thinking and behavior, as
similar as others living in his society, the person is considered to be normal,
though he may or may not have special qualities. But general psychology of a Mexican and
American cannot be the same. Psychology of the Arab and Indian also cannot be
the same. In India alone, geographically connected regions, say like
Maharashtra and Gujarat, people have different general psychologies. Rather we
can see general psychology or the way of thinking of the people changes with
region to region which reflects in their culture. However, before going deep into
this issue, we shall focus on the brain.
Brain is a physical
entity, as I have already mentioned. Mind is product of it and so the
individual psychology. No brain, if minutely analyzed, is identical with other
and so the mind and psychology too is not identical. It is brain that gives
sense of individuality. Besides genetics, individual brains overall chemical
composition is unique. A slightest change in the composition can make
transformation in individual psychology. Sometimes it is done with drugs or
extra intake of minerals or vitamins.
Barring few, humans
cannot consume minerals directly. They are mostly in compound form and in
traces. Most of the minerals he gets from his diet. The food that he uses as
his diet is produced from some land. The mineral composition in the diet
depends mostly in which land it is produced. The water he drinks too consists
of natural minerals and its composition too will depend on through which kind
of rocks it has flowed and was gathered.
We are well aware
that water of some wells is not considered to be potable for its being hard and
of odd taste whereas some well carries potable water. And taste of well water
will change with well to well and village to village…it is not because there is
problem with water but the amount of the minerals diluted in the water and
through which kind of rock-veins the water has been flown in to the well. Water
will taste according to the diluted minerals and its density. It may remain
potable or not. The people drinking water from the wells too consume the same
minerals to the given amount those can affect their overall chemistry. This
would be in very small quantity, but their physical chemistry will slightly
differ than of the people those drink water from different well having different
chemical composition.
In cosmopolitan era,
we have forgotten many things. But if we probe it will dawn on us that the food
grains of certain kind and produced in certain regions had different tastes.
Brinjols grown around Krishna River and chilly of Kolhapur had distinct taste
and flavor. What brings that? Certainly the mineral distribution in the lands
where they are grown! The crop consumes the minerals spread in the soil and
gives the distinct flavor. We could taste it and even now.
But just imagine the
era, not far back…just few decades ago…the people living in the certain regions
used to consume the food grown in the same lands for ages and drank water that
had similar mineral composition. They ate same animal those grazed in the lands
where grass too contained similar mineral composition.
What would be the
effect?
The overall body and
thus brain will essentially contain the chemical composition that was in their
regular diet. The people living in certain regions, rich with some minerals in
soil and devoid of some, show certain genetic deceases. Many deceases occur
because of lack of some or other mineral or excess of some minerals. In body
(and brain) minerals are in compound form. Chemical imbalance can cause the
psychological stresses or disorders. Human genetics too is affected by regional
geological differences. The regional genetic marks too are a proof to make our
statement true. Otherwise how the scientists could define the regional genes?
Human being is thus,
though separate from land, still he always is rooted with the land he lives in.
The overall chemical
composition, though differing slightly from person to person, will remain
identical in broader sense in every human being in certain region over the
time. His genetic structure too will be impacted by the land he lives in.
We have about or over
60 chemicals in the body though as yet we do not know exactly what all of them
is doing there is not known to us so far. The reason is roughly about 96%
percent of body mass is made up with four elements, i.e. Oxygen, Hydrogen,
Carbon and Nitrogen, that too mostly is in water form. Remaining about 4% are
the elements that we find in periodic table of elements. Many of them are in
such a minor percentage; we just cannot have them measured for they are in
immeasurable traces although they are present. We hardly can measure them with
accuracy using our modern spectrographs to determine their exact levels in the
body. What we get almost is approximation. There are micro-nutrients as well
those are at the level of parts per million or less.
However this about 4%
part of the overall body composition is responsible for not only our bodies
functioning but minds as well. The slightest variation in overall composition
of the body causes not only deceases but psychological problems as well.
However there is no data available what the correct distribution of this 4%
part of minerals is to exact measurements! We have approximate figures
estimated or observed for the healthy people. Let us have a look.
The Calcium forms
major part of the minerals, i.e. 1.5%. We have observed that in Calcium
deficiency state there is an inborn urge in the people to eat soil, chalks or
whatever that is calcium rich substance. The urge emerges in mind,
subconsciously, that converts it in to the action, unknowing to the individual.
He just strives to eat soil though restricted by others.
The elements and
their peculiar distribution in the brain would depend on the naturally
available resources amongst which he has been raised. It shapes his typical
general psychology, similar to all those who live in the similar geographical
region while his individual psychology would depend on slightest change in
general composition of the brain mass. This will have an effect on individual
intelligence and ability to use and comprehend the language. But, essentially
individual always exhibit the general psychological characteristics of the
people he lives in with peculiar individual signs. As explained above, the
geological formations and mineral compositions will have direct impact on the
composition of the body and brain of the human and will determine his
psychology!
It is a debated issues
how a child acquires a complex language. To answer this question, for example,
Chomsky says that all children have what is called an innate language acquisition
device. His idea that this device has universal syntactic rules for all languages and that this
device provides children with the ability to make sense of knowledge and
construct novel sentences with minimal external input and little experience, is
insufficient to explain the linguistic phenomena. First of all there is no such
hypothetical device exists in human being.
The process of
learning the language in child becomes easier because his brain is shaped by
the composition of similar elements those is responsible to create a cumulative
linguistic psychology. Infant will have no problem in acquiring the language
because his general linguistic psychology will be the same.
However, this alone
does not solve the main question, origin of the languages. Let us probe
further.
Psychology and the language
There are many
hypotheses about the origin of the language. However, there so far is no
agreement on any. Human is the only animal that has the ability to speak.
Without this gift humankind would have been in its primordial state even today.
But what is the origin of languages? There have been fierce disputes on this
issue, so much so that in 1866 Linguistics Society of Paris had banned debate
on this issue. Many have tried to search linguistic roots in remote
mythologies; the Bible is famous among others. Psychologists have suggested
that the language is an innate need of the human mind. But it doesn’t solve the
question as to why this innate need emerged only in human being and not other
animals? Some have tried to find its origin in the human genetic structure.
This is treated as the hardest problem in science.
Without going into
the various aspects of the debate and multiple theories, we will have an
overview of this problem and try to find whether there can be any solution to
this problem or not.
We have to agree with
the supporters of the Continuity theory that the languages didn’t originate all
of sudden. It must have been a gradual process, from simple to complex. It is a
natural process and there is no reason to disagree with it. Some theories
suggest that languages did not originate to establish dialogue with others but
to express. Discontinuity theory suggests that the languages must have
originated at some stage during the process of evolution as a sudden event.
Other theories relate the origin of the languages with primordial utterances.
Sounds are symbols and to understand that symbolism in any given language which
forms or conveys a certain meaning which is understood and reacted over in same
sound symbolism is the language. But how human being achieved that ability to
use sound symbols as a mean to convey remains as yet a mystery.
In human evolution,
there are many stages. Some are missing links. It is not that it was
unidirectional evolution. The process begins with hominids and halts with
modern human species. It is suggested
that Neanderthal man has an ability to create complex sounds. Also, it is
suggested that there could have been interbreeding between Neanderthal man and
Homo-sapiens. Whether Neanderthal man extinguished from the face of the earth
as he could not compete with Homo-Sapiens or whether they mingled with each
other is a question that is not satisfactorily solved. If both the species had an ability to speak,
we can infer, if they interbred, the genes of the language too got mixed to
give way to the future linguistic formations.
The language is
mostly in spoken form which also is written in symbols to which certain sounds
are denoted. But the first thing is sound. Human species have the larynx that
has ability to produce complex sounds with the help of the tongue and mouth. We
find no other animal have the larynx of such ability. Larynx also could have
been evolved with the growing need of the human being.
Language always is in
the mind. When in mind it doesn’t have any visible symbol. It is a constant
flow of temporal feelings, thoughts and expressions. The language of the mind
could be far different, beyond our comprehension. They are later translated to
us in the sound or symbol language that we know. When needed, we express it
through the series of sounds, whether vocal or written. So this is the basic process of the
languages.
It is assumed that
the processing of the language is interdependent between various centers in the
brain. Not a single center is
responsible for its origins and development. We can see that this doesn’t help
us to solve the problem of origin.
We have to understand
human being has an ability to give meaning to the visible world, sounds and
psychological process that is constant. Let us also assume that the natural
limitations to survive have been compensated with intellect. The primordial
humans must have gone through the terrific conditions for survival. However, we
just cannot imagine now how he would have taken those circumstances to pave way
through them to enable him to control them. The explosion of linguistic
qualities in the human brain could be a sudden event that may have taken place
at a very early stage of evolution.
It has been argued
from fossil records that Neanderthal man had larynx that could produce
sufficient sounds to make a speech. Cave paintings and artifacts shows that he
was quite expressive. The argument that, Neanderthal man must have some kind of
primitive language, can be taken seriously though we will never know what kind
of language he spoke.
Language couldn’t
have emerged just out of imitation of babbling. The quality of human species is
he has intense feelings and an urge to express. The similar sound patterns to
express specific feelings like love, commands, warnings, challenging, hunger
etc. Within a tribe could have made
first language. So feelings, thought and language could have the close
relationship.
However, the sound
patterns to express similar feelings could have differed significantly in
different geological conditions. There could have been exchanges but while
adopting any vocabulary, every tribe either changed its original sound pattern
or rendered different meaning as their innate psychology permitted.
This is because the
geological and geographical environment had major hand in the development of
their own and adopted vocabulary and grammatical patterns. The evolution of the
language has always been influenced by the specific general psychology of the
people living in certain geographical regions. Though early human being was
nomadic, his roaming was in his known periphery of the geography. We have to
understand how geography is closely connected with the language.
Language was not certainly
an innate need of the human being. Innate need for him was survival against all
odds. He selected his way of survival by making bands and coordinated efforts.
And in process of doing so essentially he needed initial language to effect
coordination and action. Without language it would be impossible, no matter how
rudimentary the language would be!
There also are bands
of other animals like foxes, antelopes and monkeys. They too have rudimentary
sound-languages. They use it to caution others when danger is imminent. They
utter differently when lovemaking, or just responding to others. They have a
language of some rudimentary kind that is not comprehended by us. But they lack
(or we think so) in developed vocal chords and so the brain capable enough to
process the sounds further. Human species have crossed these hurdles in process
of the evolution for his imminent need of survival.
Thus language is
product of human psychology. To meet this need his larynx and ability to
process sounds and attach certain meaning to express evolved faster. The
psychology is related with how the mind functions and mind is solely dependent
on our brain to which we yet to have understand fully. However, development of
a complex brain with added capabilities to perform larger functions, such as
analyzing sounds, understand meaning and delivering same sounds while
expressing the same action, have caused development of the language in every
geographical region where human delved. And though the process was similar, the
development was unique everywhere.
The major question
here is, if human species is unique and same, why there are over six thousand
languages in the world? Why people of certain region speak some language and
different in adjoining region? Why some sounds are missing in some languages
whereas they are most prominent in the languages spoken in adjoining regions?
For example some languages have retroflexes and some are devoid of them.
Why there is not
universal language if human species have everything in common? Why there are so
many groups of the languages and several hundred branches of every group?
We will have to deal
with this question more elaborately because some theories wide in circulation
have misused the fact for supremacist political reasons, though it is not a
good science.
To conclude here, we
have to check it up first the psychology of human species that is instrumental
in origination and control of the language. Psychology is overall functioning
of the brain that is instrumental in deciding the priorities. And priorities of
survival against all odds decide how to use the available integral resources
causing further evolution through modifications. The evolution of the brain and
associated organs must have been a process that must have taken toll of the
millions in the rout to achieve the utmost possible qualities.
It may have been
continued process or discontinued or it could have been developed through
interbreeding of the different human-like species of ancient times. We have no
any concrete evidence as yet what did happen in those times, but the fact
remains that we have language. Our psychology governs the language we speak.
Our organs, such as larynx and jaws, decide how it would be uttered. With
region to region we find these physical features do change along with others.
Physical features are governed by the climate and geography of the people they
live in over generations. Mexican accents would not be same as of the New
Yorkers. The slightest difference in general physiology would make noticeable
difference in pronunciation patterns as well.
We have different
languages classified in different groups. We have the languages classified
under one group and yet they are incomprehensible to the man who speaks the
language belonging to the same group. In fact though there is universal human
with all the similar physical characteristics there is no similar language in
the world.
We have to first
account for such changes.
The fact is there are
changes in the same languages with regions to regions, though they collectively
are labeled as some language. Every language for that matter is group of
dialects. The group of the languages represents the languages those have some
common morphological features. To be a part of any group of the languages
geographical closeness is not warranted.
And it is prominently
claimed that the spread of some language is because of the population movement
in remote past. It is claimed that Proto-Indo-European language speakers were
settled at some place and for reasons unknown migrated in different directions
and wherever they reached PIE did spread.
Though there is dispute over what the original homeland of PIE speakers
was, there so far is no dispute over the spread of the language to form a
distinct group.
Though I strongly
object to this hypothesis on the scientific and logical grounds, for time being
let us be with this theory taking it a fact for time being.
If some people,
speaking some proto-language, spread for
reasons, wherever they went the basic structure of the languages spoken in the
areas they settled must be the same. But is it a case? Linguistic biology is
sometimes invoked while proposing this theory of IE group of the languages. If
this considered true, I have following points:
1)
The PIE
languages, after spread, formed regional varieties. How the regional variation
process would have taken place?
2)
Though
unknown is the basic structure of the PIE language the affinities in the group
languages is striking in some cases whereas vague in many. They painfully have to
establish the relationship with artificial reconstructions of the
proto-language.
3)
The
differences are notable with region to region. Such as the IE’s spoken in
European countries and in India in different regions.
4)
There are
intermediary blocks where unrelated to surrounding group languages are spoken.
Brahui, Munda etc. are the examples those are surrounded by IE language
speakers. Their so called isolation or migration from some place is not an
answer to this vital problem. If PIE language spread across the globe with a
process why the same couldn’t have been applied in these odd cases?
To sum up, even if we
accept the group of the language theory, effected by migrations of some
intelligent human species, we do not know whether they were Homo sapiens or
Neanderthals and what are remains of those species. The racial views imposed
upon the linguistics have distorted the science of the languages that blocks
our vision to see the truth.
We find there are
regional varieties, somewhere very striking somewhere vague. Not that the group
languages are intelligible to all those who are part of that so called group.
And this doesn’t solve a question, why there are regional varieties of the same
language and why it did take separate path?
I think this is the
major question linguistic scientists should give more attention to. A most
probable answer offered is, wherever PIE speakers went they mingled with local
populations, borrowed and improvised their vocabularies and the language grew
thereafter unique and yet biologically related with PIE language. If we
consider this too is true, we have to assume that wherever PIE speakers went
subjugated local languages. They borrowed from them but kept basic structure of
their own language undisturbed. Because of the local languages PIE bred with,
it became different and yet it could maintain its own superiority.
But we must
understand here that in disguise of PIE language expansion theory nothing new
is told to us than what Aryan race Theory was telling. In a way we are stalled
here. They are telling us the same story in different words. It doesn’t talk of
psychology of the language. Rather it believes that the languages can be
imposed, so much so that the native languages can lose their original basic
structure. But the fact about IE languages is that they too then have lost
their original structure, whatsoever hypothetically it was!
We need to look in to
the problem of the languages from different point of view. The need arises
because the present postulations are lame in their arguments and proofs. Spread
of some language speaking people to effect group of the languages across the
territories is simplified answer to a complicated question. It does not take
into the consideration linguistic psychology.
It runs away from the
basic question, how some language that was so powerful to influence others
could have been originated and among whom and where? The original geography of
the PIE language is as yet uncertain and hypothetical. There cannot be the proof
from material remains of the culture as to what languages the people were
speaking in those times. The available proofs, the language of Avesta, Rig Veda
and the treaty of Bogazkoy or Horse Manuel of Kikkuli tells us far less if not
more. Language and contents of Avesta and Rig Veda tells us just their
geography being close and that language of Rig Veda, though close to the
Avesta, is significantly modified later. The language of Bogazkoy treaty tells
us that some deities and demons and numeric from the east were known to them.
We cannot take it as a solid proof of Aryan Language expansion theory. It
doesn’t tell us why in certain close geographies IE could not spread!
Geographically the Semitic language speakers and Dravidian language speakers
are very close and they have interactions from millenniums and yet we find
there is no remarkable influence of IE languages on them.
To conclude this
chapter we can sum up as:
1)
Language
is psychological phenomenon supported by physical organs.
2)
Though
genetically human being is same (The variation amounts for just 0.50%) the
languages show variety of differences. There are over 6000 languages in the
world distributed in several families.
In
fact I will show in the next chapter how regional Local geological features govern
the general psychology of the people that reflects in local culture and the
language. No migration of some band can
effect the spread of the language. The supremacist theories of the races and
languages should see the end hereafter.
As
we have seen in previous chapters, if any better language would have emerged it
only could be a complex society. We also have seen the agriculture and
urbanized society only could have developed complex or advanced language as
compared to pastorals of the past. Languages do differ with every society with
change in their geological and geographical changes.
*
5
Migration
theories and the languages
First we have to admit that the material culture of
the human beings walk hand in hand with the language the people of that
particular culture do speak. There are various views about the origin of the
languages and their spread. There are almost 445 languages in Indo-European
language category out of which 313 languages are sub-grouped under Indo-Iranian
head. The spread of these languages is vast that covers almost from North-West
China to Europe region. We are aware that the origin of the Aryan theory is in
some similarities in Vedic Sanskrit and European languages those were noticed
by the western scholars which was later theorized to the Indo-European language
theory. Without going in to the racial aspects of the theory and its fatal
impact on the global civilization, let us agree that there is the IE language
group theory which consists of all the characteristics of the Aryan Race
theory. An IE language theory ultimately means and is aimed to prove the same
thing and that is Aryan invasion.
The theory assumes that there were the people,
settled at some hypothetical place, among whom a proto-Indo-European language
originated. PIE speakers later dispersed in waves to speared IE languages and
their superior culture wherever they went. It also is assumed that the IE
people were inventors of the chariots and were first to domesticate the horses.
They could invade and conquer the lands because of their superiority coupled
with their innovative invention. Michael Witzel calls them the “Vedic
Tanks”! However, in absence of the
proofs to support the invasion theory, the linguists devised migration theory
to replace earlier while keeping the notion of superiority of the IE ancestors
intact.
In this regard,
Nicholas Kazanas states, "But
invasion is the substratum of all such theories even if words like ‘migration’
are used. There could not have been an Aryan immigration because (apart from
the fact that there is no archaeological evidence for this) the results would
have been quite different. Immigrants do not impose their own demands or
desires on the natives of the new country: they are grateful for being
accepted, for having the use of lands and rivers for farming or pasturing and
for any help they receive from the natives; in time it is they who adopt the
language (and perhaps the religion) of the natives. You cannot have a migration
with the results of an invasion."
In this matter Kazanas’ remarks need to be taken
seriously, though, all scholars at the least unanimously agree that there was
no invasion; however, they assert there was migration in the waves in India and
elsewhere to explain the similarities in the languages spoken across the IE
world. They didn’t think for a moment that the movement of the people is not
required to form the group or net of the language, if at all it is to be called
a group!
The linguistic groups are made out of comparative
study of the grammatical texture, sound-sequences, similarities in the words
etc. It is thought that the group languages are developed from the common
ancestry. Comparative methods are applied to decide whether certain language
belongs to some group or other and also the attempts have been made to
restructure the proto-language using modern devices. In a way the group
languages can be describes as a tree with many branches. However, the linguists
have proved that the German languages spoken in the eastern and western Germany
do not belong to the same tree. Linguists hence have sub-grouped the European
languages like Italo-Celtic, Greco-Armenian and Greco-Aryan to solve the
complicated issue of the languages. The
linguists admit that there are not enough proofs available to show direct
mother-daughter relationship between Proto Indo-European and present IE
languages.
The oldest proofs those are considered to be
foundation for the PIE theory are the language of Avesta, Rig Veda, Hittite
treaty and horse training manual of Kikkuli. Also there is brief Greek epigraph
called Diplon script which belongs to 800 BC.
Here, we must not forget that the time of the Rig Veda is uncertain and
so of the Avesta because both were committed to the writing in late era. Also,
both have undergone significant linguistic changes through the passage of the
time. There are no proofs to pin the exact time of both the scriptures except
hypothetical conjectures. The oral tradition through which Rig Veda is said to
be preserved unaltered has proven to be a myth. Only Hittite treaty is attested
to 1380 BC, but irony is the treaty itself is not at all in so called IE
language. Among others, the treaty
invokes some Iranian deities as well as demons those with efforts can be linked
with the IE languages. Except for numerics and some technical terms the Kikkuli
horse training manual too is in Semitic language. Appearance of some similar personal names,
numeric, deities and demons in some distinct culture cannot become a solid
foundation to prove presence of the people speaking some hypothetical
proto-language.
Here we can take an example of the language of the
Rig Veda which is considered to be oldest IE language. It also is claimed that
IE language entered India through migrating Aryans. It is still a speculation
as to how much migrating Aryans were in number. The myth of Videgh Mathava
preserved in Shatapatha Brahmana suggests that a small group of Vedic
Aryans accompanied by priest Gautama Rohugana left their original habitat and
marched towards Indus basin to find shelter. This indicates clearly that the
number of those Aryans was small.
Also, it is now clear that the language of Rig Veda
got significantly changed during rearrangement, editing and compilation
process. Witzel says that the language of Avesta is far older than the language
of Rig Veda. While refuting Out of India Theory claimed by Vedicists, he
states, “....On the other hand, while we
can observe some changes common to all Iranian languages (s > h,p,t,k +
consonant >f, •&, x + cons., etc.), Avest. often is quite archaic, both
in grammar and also in vocabulary, while Ved. seems to have progressed much
more toward Epic and Classical Sanskrit (loss of injunctive, moods of the
perfect, aorist, etc.). The Avest. combination within a sentence of neuter
plural nouns with the singular of the verb is hardly retained even in the other older IE languages. The Old Avest. of
Zaraftustra, thus, is frequently even more archaic than the RV and therefore
simply too old to have moved out of India after the composition of the RV
(supposedly, before 2600-5000 bce)." (The Indo-Aryan Controversy: Evidence and Inference
in Indian History edited by Edwin Bryant, Laurie L. Patton, Psychology Press,
2005, pp 366-367)
Now, if Rigveda and Avesta (Gatha) were composed
during same period, the language of Rig Veda should have been similar to the
Avestan language, but this is not the case. Vedic language did not remain
original when Vedics came and settled in India. The Vedic language is heavily
influenced by Prakrits and by the Dravidian to some extent. The regional
varieties of Prakrits also can be seen entered in Vedic language. We do not
know what original Rig Veda was as in all probability content, order and
original message has been edited or altered. Even Rig Veda available to
grammarian Panini was not the same as we have today because it has again
undergone sound changes in course of the time. What Rig Veda is available today
is in hybrid language.
This could only happen because the migrant Vedic
Aryans got influenced by the local language, they could not impact local languages
as commonly is thought. It is preposterous to claim migrants influenced
original Indian languages. So group of the language theory effected by the
migrants is baseless.
Other group classified is Semitic group of the
languages, spoken in North Africa, Western Asia and surrounding regions. This
is the only language group that has attested written proofs beginning from 2800
BC. The first written (and hence unaltered) religious text is available in form
of the Pyramid Text. Though the hype is all about PIE language and superiority
of its authors, there is no conclusive evidence to support the existence of
such certain group of the people those together located at some hypothetical
place and their subsequent dispersions and conquests. Even the Rig Veda and Avesta
do not support this claim. What they have at hand to make out a big claim that
is some similarities in the IE languages, nothing else.
It is a fact that if thought linguistically, there
exist group languages those again branch out in the sub-groups. Even if we
consider ‘Out of Africa model’ to be true as claimed, it does not
satisfactorily answer why there would be different language groups if the human
being belongs to the same ancestry? Also, though a language belongs to the
certain group, why it should be unintelligible to the people speaking other
language belonging to the same group?
It will be insane to think that the human being invented
the words scientifically devising the roots first. The words have been
developed further, attained new or opposite meaning or lost in the course of
the time. The science of the words or language follows later. There are many
languages those do not have any grammar, still they have some certain harmonic
order that can deliver the intended meaning, no matter how limited it may be.
It is considered that the every word has root and it
can be the basis for restructuring the proto-language. The root in
language is either a base word,
or a part of a word to which affixes are added. Or, it is the part left after
affixes have been taken away. Technically, it is the smallest unit which
carries meaning: it cannot be reduced into smaller units. With reverse efforts
the root can be traced out but then the question is, are they of any help? The
Nairuktas (Indian etymological treaties) command that if a word fails to derive
meaningful root then abandon the grammatical rules and go by the meaning
suggested by the word itself! Obeying the command the etymologists like Yaska
and others have found etymologies of the many words whose roots do not support
them. For example, the word “Vadhu” (Bride) has the root “Vadh”
(murder) so the root is useless to determine the etymology of the word Vadhu.
What to be done then? Find nearest root “vah” (To carry) which suggests
nearest meaning of the word “Vahu”, the girl is carried to the husbands home
hence called Vadhu, bride. Of course this is forceful etymology! There
are many words like “Agni” those doesn’t have any certain etymology. The fact
to be understood is the words did not emerged scientifically using the roots.
Meanings attached to the word keep on changing and there hardly is any way to
know what meaning the certain word delivered when it was invented. So, though
on a base sound a group of words can be made, the root in itself will remain
ambiguous and may not match the meaning of the word. This is why many scholars
do not believe in the reconstruction of the proto language on mere hypothetical
ground when the roots and the words do not agree with the meanings they want to
derive to prove their migration theories.
The horse and the chariot in itself is a very flimsy
foundation to make out a big theory. David Anthony states that it is impossible
to know who invented the chariot and domesticated the horse first! As Edward
Pegler states that few words in IE languages are attempted to connect with the
chariot by reconstructing the root, the etymologies have proved to be futile
exercise as none of it gives the exact meaning what is expected from the word
chariot. Even if it is considered that the PIE etymologies for chariot are
true, it does not prove that they were the inventors of the chariot. In fact,
Nicholas Kazanas, to take Indus time significantly back, tries to prove that
the Vedic “Ratha” meant just wagon or cart and not chariot.
Some linguists have tried to connect spread of the
IE languages with invention of the agriculture.
If this is the case then we will have to agree that the agriculture was
first invented in Anatolia and it was spread with the expansion of the PIE
people! This will be funny hypothesis because PIE people were not alone
inventors of the agriculture! IE languages mostly lacks in the agriculture related
vocabulary. Vedic people were pastoralists. Sanskrit didn’t have a word for
Plough hence they borrowed “Langal” from Dravidian or some other language. The
fact is the cart, wagon, chariot, fire, agriculture and many other inventions
cannot be related to some hypothetical super-intelligent human group. The
spread of the languages too cannot be solely attributed to the migrations of
the people.
Most importantly, as yet the PIE homeland issue
remains hotly debated and controversial issue as there simply is no agreement
on it. They also are not sure exactly when the PIE language arose. The
estimates range from 2000 BC to 8000 BC. Recent study published in “Science”
(Feb. 15) implies that the Steppes of Russia and Ukraine could be the homeland
of the PIE speakers and that the migration started about 4500 years ago.
What genetics say?
The genetics too have been used to explain the
spread of the languages. In fact genetics is to know the human ancestry and not
the languages they spoke. Out of Africa theory is the product of the modern
genetics, which has been objected too, however, we will not entangle ourselves
in that endless debate. But the fact remains that the genetics too have been
used to explain migrations of the PIE speakers’. Spencer Wells states that
these are tenuous efforts to link migrations and languages. Genetic patterns do
not provide clear support to the proposed model.
There have been several genetic research papers
those deal with genetics and PIE languages. The report appearing in “Science”
(Feb. 15) is based on the research of a large team of geneticists led by David Reich and Iosif Lazaridis of
Harward Medical School. The DNA samples suggest that the Yamnaya people (DNA
obtained from 4 skeletons) could have moved from Steppes 4500 years ago. This
paper claims to have connected two far-flunged material cultures to specific
genetic signatures. The report states that the team says they spoke a form of
Indo-European language. Earlier it was considered that the origins of PIE were
6000 years ago. To meet this gap, hypothetically, it is being proposed that
this may be secondary migration!
Another report
published in ‘Nature’ too deals with the genomics and spread of the languages.
A large team led by Morten E Alentoft examined about 101 sampled ancient individuals
from Europe and Central Asia. They also used the archeological evidences of
chariot burials (2000-1800 BC) to find the migration pattern. The report relies
on the hypothesis of the linguists that ‘the spread of Indo-European languages
must have required migration combined with social or demographic dominance and
this expansion has been supported by archeologists pointing to striking
similarities in the archeological record across western Eurasia during the
third millennium BC. The genomic evidence for the spread of the Yamnaya people
from the Pontic-Caspian Steppe to both northern Europe and Central Asia during
the early Bronze Age corresponds well with the hypothesized expansion of the IE
languages.’
However, report
agrees that the genomics cannot find which language people spoke. Also we must
note here that the cultures do not expand only with the migrations of the
people. Practice of the Horse/chariot burials across the civilizations cannot
be attributed solely to the movement of particular set of the people.
The major objection
on the above report is that it is heavily dependent on sequencing of a very few
samples. The Yamna culture was nomadic
and was found in Russia in the Ural region, the Pontic Steppe dating back to
3600-2300 BC. It is also known as the Pit Grave Culture,
the Ochre Grave Culture and feeds into the Corded Ware Culture. This was not
the independent culture but was admixture of East European or Caucasus
hunter-gatherers and near eastern people. So, genetically too, Yamna people
were blend of three distinct ancestries. It has not been suggested exactly when
and how this blend occurred. If PIE has to be linked with the genetics, the PIE
too was blend of three different languages!
We have seen in the
last chapter that the invention of the agriculture dates back to 10000 BC,
which possibly could have much earlier beginning. Till Bronze Age (2000BC)Yamna
people were pastoralists. Exactly when and why they moved to spread elsewhere
is not known. Europe was already populated by 7000 BC by hunters and food
gatherers. There is no evidence that these people were wiped out by any
invading community. There is no evidence to prove that Yamna people had
overwhelming population to effect demographic dominance. By the time Yamna
culture came into the existence, Egyptian, Sumerian and Indus culture had
reached to its pinnacle. They had sophisticated languages and writing system.
They had built massive cities and monuments. They had irrigation system and
advanced farming in place long before Yamna people (or any hypothetical PIE
group) might have migrated elsewhere.
Agriculture effected
the cultural and linguistic explosion. New vocabulary, well structured grammar
and essential mathematics were natural outcome to meet the urgent demands of
the new lifestyle that people had to adopt. It changed religious ideas as well.
The emergence of the fertility cult can be attributed to the invention and
practice of the farming for livelihood.
It can be easily shown that the languages of the settled agriculturist
societies are always advanced over the languages of the pastoralists. The
linguistic developments are always related to the growing complexities of the
societies.
Genetics does not
help us to understand the origin of the languages and its spread. The history
of the languages is far older than the so-called migration era of the PIE
speakers. Genetic mixtures too have long history than it is assumed. The
nomadic era of hunter-food gatherer man ranges from at the least 60000 years
ago. During this vast span of time, interbreeding between numerous tribes can
result in admixture of various genetic pools, making it impossible to find a
single source.
Development of ability
to speak in human species has ancient origin. Though it is difficult to
determine exactly when human started giving meaning to certain series of sounds
and structured them grammatically, it is certain that the rudimentary languages
had developed in every tribe or culture long before the so-called Yamna people
set out on an assumed mission to subjugate other cultures and impose their
language! Even in the known history we hardly find any example where even
mighty rulers could impose their languages on the subjugated people, unless
they outnumbered them. The cultural and technological exchanges too have an
ancient history. Hence the migration theory to prove spread of the IE languages
is too weak and unreliable.
Most importantly,
migration theories do not help us in solving the very problem of its origin. We
have to go into the root to find why languages differ from region to region. We
have to see how the distinct languages forms exhibiting distinct
characteristics to which we call different language group.
However, we must note
from the genomics reports that the genes carry the regional markers without
which it would be impossible to determine the geographical source of ancestral
genes. The genomics report concludes that the Yamna people were admixture of East
European or Caucasus hunter-gatherers and near eastern people. So, genetically
too, Yamna people were blend of three distinct ancestries. Without regional
markers it would be impossible to determine location of the source genes.
Hence, we may conclude
that human genes bear regional markers. Spread of the languages cannot be
attributed solely to the migrations. Archeology does not tell us anything about
the language spoken by the people of any material culture. Spread of one
material culture does not indicate spread of the same linguistic entity. To
solve question of language groups we need to first understand origin of the
languages and why there are similarities and dissimilarities in different
languages and whether it is sane to classify the languages in some group and
attribute its origin to some proto source language.
We have to find
answers to the most baffling question, why regional languages do differ and why
entirely different set of languages do emerge even in closely adjoining
geographies. Unless we understand this, the problem of group languages will not
satisfactorily be solved. In my opinion regional geological formations do
influence the language groups and subgroups. In next chapter I will try to
prove this from connection between Indian languages and the geological
formations of the regions where they are spoken. Geology also might have effect
of genetic structures of the people which has to be studied further. However,
migration is not answer to the group of the languages problem.
*
6
Language groups: Geological
connections!
Specific geological
structure that includes rock formations, geo-magnetism, local gravitation,
topography, climate, flora and fauna and general distribution of the minerals
in surface soil forms the regions of the distinct characteristics, no matter
even if they are geographically closely connected. The geological regions of
the similar physical characteristics do reflect in the particular cultural and
linguistic traits of the people living within the boundaries of the region. In
fact, the general psychology and genetics of the people is influenced and governed
by the particular geological formation of the region.
In
this chapter, I desire to show the clear relationship between regional
geologies and languages spoken in general. The problem of language
distributions is not satisfactorily solved as yet. PIE speakers’ migration
theories are widely in circulation to explain the spread of the IE
languages from as yet uncertain location.1 Genetics too has been
used recently to show the spread of the languages through population movements
and surprisingly is used to explain caste dynamics in India.2
Without
entering into that endless debate, I wish to propose an alternative
theory, which, in my opinion, explains the regional languages and reasons of
their similarities and dissimilarities with others giving rise to the suspicion
whether in reality such net of certain language has effected because
of the population movements or not!
I
shall show that the population movement is not required for the emergence of
certain language, labeled as the grouping of certain languages, such as IE
or Dravidian or any other language group for that matter. The hypothesis
strongly relies on the following-
a)
The language is an outcome of innate psychological abilities of the
people. The group of certain people constantly living for generations in
certain geographical limits does develop the peculiar psychological tendencies
those reflect in their culture and language.
b)
Boundaries of every language (dialect) are decided by the boundaries of specific
geological formations and as the geological features start changing on the borders
of distinct geological region, the gradual change in the language and culture do
occur.
c) Genetics and language may have
the certain relationship; though as yet it is undetermined whether
language is an inborn quality.3 It is possible that in course
of the evolution, faculty of language emerged most accidently
in human being. Regional human genetics do vary. However, genetics
just proves ability to learn, develop and speak complex languages. It may not
be a factor that determines the origination of the language.
d)
The identifiable regional markers carried by the genes are well recorded and at
present without understanding their significance have been widely used to
promote migration theories.4
e)
There is an influence of geomagnetism on human psychologies.5 The
local geomagnetism, which varies with region to region owing to the specific geological
formations, some way influences the general psychology of the people.
f)
General mineral distribution in particular geographies is distinct that
influences the local crops and water and thus the people those over generations
are consuming them. The mineral distribution in body (and brain) through
nutrition does develop the certain biological characteristics influencing the
psychology that reflects in their general behavior and language.
General observations
a)
There is a certain relationship between the geological formation patterns
of the regions and how the language will be developed within its boundary. With
the change in geological formations, from one region to other, we
distinctly can note the change in cultural expression and dialect. If
there are fault regions we can notice entirely different languages, unrelated to
the surrounding regions, are spoken.
b)
Pronunciation patterns due to slight geological variations do change region by
region, no matter even if they speak the same language.
c)
Though Dravidian language speakers are geographically annexed to the landmass
of Indo-Aryan speakers, we find clear distinction between the both,
because both the regions have entirely different qualities of the geological
formations.
d)
Every Indo-Aryan and Dravidian languages again are distinctly sub-classified in
the respective regions, though they have two distinct sources. Within the
regions too we find distinct dialects and even independent to the
surrounding language groups! We find regional geologies, too, differ wherever
we see such linguistic differences/variations.
e.
It is assumed that language variations begun because in ancient times different
tribes began to form and to claim their territory, in order to differentiate
themselves many of these groups made changes to their language which helped
evolution of the languages.6 However, identity or isolation does not
satisfactorily answer the basic question as to why with changing regions
variation in language occur.
These are the general observations we should
keep in mind. In this paper, I will focus on Indian languages those have been
divided by linguists as Indo-Aryan and Dravidian. Genetically these groups have
been classified as Ancestral North Indians (ANI) and Ancestral South Indians
(ASI) to denote different genetic identities. It has been assumed that both the
ancestral populations belonging to different original geographies are
responsible for the formation of the ethno-linguistic groups in India. 7
It should be noted that the
geographical identities of the ANI’s have been established based on the genetic
evidence, thus making it clear that the geographical genetic markers do exist
and they are because of the reasons outlined above.
A
fact should be noted that despite the geographical closeness and interaction of
millenniums Dravidian languages could not be replaced by otherwise
so-called-victorious IE languages though there is and was political and
cultural unity to some extent. This is a phenomenon that needs the serious
explanation which cannot be solved based on the predetermined and popular
migration theories.
We
will have a brief look at the geology of the South and North India to establish
geological connection to the distinct cultures and languages, including genetics.
Dravidian Language regions
Dravidian
languages are spread in south in the four major states, such as
Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh, Kerala and Tamilnadu. Interestingly these
regions stand apart from rest of the north India
from geological point of view as well.
Let
us see how. Geological survey of India has done the extensive survey of
these states as well. Let us have a look at their findings/observations.
1.
Southern Granulite terrain (SGT) covers Andhra, Tamilnadu and southern part of
Karnataka.
2. Vast expanse
of granulite gneiss terrain covers central and north-east Tamilnadu, referred
as “Sathyamangalam” in Tamilnadu is considered to be geological and
geographical continuity with ‘Sargurs” of Karnataka.
3.
Various types of pink and grey gneisses forming part of the
Peninsular Gneissic Complex extend southward from the states of Karnataka and
Andhra Pradesh and occur north of Palar River along the northern
border of Tamil Nadu. Around Krishnagiri, these
gneisses form different textural types of various hues
and colours.
4.
The southern extension of the Kolar Schist Belt of Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh
is seen around Veppanapalli, Maharajagadai and Bargur areas of
Dharmapuri District. Within Tamil Nadu the schist belt breaks up into
three arms and later extends as dismembered lenses and linear patches within
the Peninsular Gneiss. The schist belt is made up of assemblages of greenstone
rocks designated as Kolar Group comprising biotite, hornblende schists and
amphibolites of different types, banded ferruginous quartzite and
acid volcanics (Champion Gneiss) represented by quartz - sericite
schist and quartzo feldspathic gneiss.
5.
The Pre-Cambrian terrain of Tamil Nadu is extensively fractured and deeply
faulted particularly in the northern and central parts. Not all the faults,
shear zones and fracture zones have been depicted.
6.
There are various groups those vary in age and formations, but are exclusively
found in southern states.
7.
Karnataka, forming a part of the Indian Shield, is constituted of rock
formations ranging in age from 3300 m.y. to 5 m.y. Barring a narrow coastal
strip of about 5000 sq.km of Tertiary and Quaternary sediments and another
31,250 sq.km of Deccan basalts, the remaining area is dominated by
Archaean-Proterozoic rocks. Mysore Plateau, geologically
constituted of Dharwar Craton comprises of greenstone-granite
belts, gneisses and granulites.
8.
Of Karnataka, components of Peninsular Gneiss always show isoclinal folds with
thinned limbs and stretched hinges defined by compositional banding. Viscosity
contrast between the quartzo-feldspathic layers and amphibolite mass
under the compressive forces have caused a variety of structures. Ptygmatic
folds in quartzo-feldspathic materials, agmatitic structures
are the few common forms.
9.
Greenstone belts of Karnataka have complex geological history and rich mineral
resources. The era of 2900 million years to 2600 million years witnessed this
great event of the evolution of Greenstone belts in
Karnataka. Stratigraphic level vis-à-vis geochronological positioning
of different schist belts had always been a point of endless yet useful debate.
10.
Of Kerala, geologically, is occupied
by Precambrian crystallines, acid to ultra basic intrusives of
Archaean to Proterozoic age, Tertiary (Mio-Pliocene) sedimentary rocks and
Quaternary sediments of fluvial and marine origin. Both the crystallines and
the Tertiary sediments have been extensively lateritised.
11.
The rocks of Peninsular Gneissic Complex(PGC) are exposed in the northern parts
of Kerala adjoining Karnataka . This consists of a heterogeneous mixture of
granitoid materials. The equivalent rocks of PGC in Kerala
include hornblendebiotite gneiss (sheared), biotite-hornblende
gneiss, foliated granite and pink granite gneiss. Granite gneiss is exposed
along the intra-State boundary of Palakkad District as well as in Idukki
District.
12.
This consists of gneisses showing preponderance of either hornblende
or biotite. The percentage of hornblende and biotite varies from place to
place. This can be traced from Manantoddy to further
northwest upto the west coast. West of Manantoddy, the rock is
hornblende gneiss. It shows coarse granulitic to gneissic texture and is composed
of hornblende, feldspar, quartz, pyroxene, biotite and garnet. Alkali feldspar
shows alteration to clay and sericite. Biotite is mainly secondary after
hornblende.
Observations:
All
the four states, speaking the languages belonging to the Dravidian group, have
regional independent features with changed geological patterns and mixtures but
having the same geological source. We find that with the slight change in local
geology has created separate local dialects. For example, Travancore region
has different dialect whereas Palakkad and Trichur region and northern Kerala
have different dialects.
Tulu
Nadu, a small region that spreads between south-west part of Karnataka and
Kasaragod district of Kerala, where proto-South Dravidian Tulu language is spoken.
Interestingly, the region has peculiar geological formations that have occurred
88 million years ago and they fall apart from the rest of the adjoining
geological features. The local changes could have been occurred because of
effects of the tectonic movements, seismic force and ancient volcanic eruption
that has caused the present formation with different mix.
So,
though there are regional variations in the geological compositions and
geography, the overall general geological formation of the southern India is
quite distinct from northern India.
Genetically,
Dravidians are classified under L Haplogroup whereas North Indians have been
classified in R1a Haplogroup. The demarcation has to be connected to geological
differences and not migrations. The general geology of north India is as below-
Indo-European Language
speaking regions
Maharashtra
Maharashtra
is a state geographically connected to the Dravidian language speaking regions
towards south and east and towards North and north-east are the regions annexed
with Indo-European speaking regions. That way Maharashtra can be said as a land
that forms middle point clearly separating two distinct language groups.
The
entire area of the State forms a part of the “Peninsular Shield”, which is
composed of rocks commencing from the most ancient rocks of diverse origin,
which have undergone considerable metamorphism. Over these ancient rocks
of Precambrian era lie a few basins of Proterozoic era and of permocarboniferous periods
which are covered by extensive sheets of horizontally bedded lava flows
comprising the Deccan trap. More than 80% area of the State is
covered by the Deccan trap, which have concealed geologically older
formations. The most important economic minerals such as coal, iron ore,
manganese ore, limestone, etc. are found in the geologically older formations.
Structurally,
the entire area of the state forms a part of the “Peninsular Shield” of India
which represents a fairly stable block of earth crust that has remained
unaffected by, mountain-building movements, since the advent of
the Palaeozoic era. Some of the subsequent movements in
the crust have been of the nature of normal and block faulting
which have laid down certain portions bounded by tensional cracks of
faults giving rise to basins in which sedimentary beds of the Gondwana age have
been deposited.
Particularly
in the Vidarbha region giving rise to the the important limestone as
Penganga beds and coalfields of the Pench-Kanhan valley, the Umred –
Bander field the Wardha valley and Vidarbha valley.
It
is generally accepted that the Western coast has been formed as a result of the
faulting. Along this coast from Ratnagiri to Mumbai, and
further north in Thane district there exists a series of hot springs arranged
almost in linear fashion which suggests that they are situated on a
line of fracture.
Further
evidence regarding the formation of west coast by faulting is offered
by the Western Ghats comprising Deccan trap lava flows, which are several
hundred metres thick near the coast and which gradually thins
out east wards. Near Panvel, near the west coast the
Deccan traps show westerly slopes indicating designated
as Panvel flexure. Maharashtra has mostly basaltic soil.
The
language Marathi is spoken in most of the Maharashtra State, possessing unique
characteristics. We also find dialect variation in every geological sub-zones,
though they comprise of mostly similar basic structure. In Eastern
Vidarbha, we find totally different dialects for those regions has
different geological formations and are not part of the Deccan
Trap. Also the variations and formations of Konkan strip suggest the
probable reasons of the difference in local dialects those posses
some alien elements to Marathi.
Madhya Pradesh
The
oldest group of rocks comprising of Archaeans and Proterozoic formation
constitute nearly 45% area of the State. The next younger formation of
Carboniferous to lower Cretaceous comprising Gondwana Super Group covers 10%
area while the formation of Cretaceous to Paleocene comprising mostly of Deccan
Trap basalt constitutes 38% area of the State.
The
state of Chhattisgarh, geographically encompasses an
area over 1,35,195 sq km. Geologically, it constitutes
important rock formations stratigraphically ranging from Archaean to Recent.
Northern Crustal Province (NCP) and the Southern Crustal Province (SCP)
separated by East-West trending Central Indian Shear Zone (CIS) are major
tectonic features with crucial geological manifestations.
The
regional tectonics have played major role in the tectonic evolution
of the Chhattisgarh rocks. The oldest rock in the NCP belongs to the Archaean
which includes the granite gneisses and enclaves of igneous and sedimentary
rocks confined to southern part of the Province in the Bilaspur-Raigarh belt.
Gneisses and granitoids exposed to the east of Mahanadi basin are
classified as Chhotanagpur Gneissic Complex. The NCP is devoid of any
volcano-sedimentary sequence and Proterozoic cover rocks, unlike the SCP. The
younger sequences of Upper Carboniferous to Lower Cretaceous Gondwana rocks are
well developed in the Mahanadi and South Rewa basins. The two basins merge in
Surguja area north of Baikuntapar. Lameta Group is exposed in the Amarkantak
plateau region.
Remnants
of Deccan Trap occur in the plateaus
in the western and northeastern parts of Bilaspur District and southeastern and
eastern part of Surguja District. Laterite and bauxite pockets occur at
Jamirapat and Manipatin, Surguja District and Phutka Pahar, Korba
District. Quaternary alluvium is confined to major river valleys. The SCP is an
Archaean to Neoproterozoic assembly of lithotectonic association
comprising Archaean to Palaeoproterozoic Bengpal, Sukma, Bailadila,
Sonakhan Groups, gneiss-granitoids and younger Meso to Neoproterozoic
cover rocks of Chhattisgarh, Indravati, and Pakhal Groups. Together they
constitute the Bastar Craton.
Palaeoproterozoic
volcanic rocks of Nandgaon Group extend in a NS direction in
to the western part of bordering Maharashtra. The Dongargarh and its
equivalent granites in Madanbera and Kanker-Mainpur areas
occupy major portion of South Central part of the state. Volcano
sedimentary sequence of Khairagarh and Abujhmar Groups and sediments
of Chilpi Group belonging to PalaeoMesoproterozoic unconformably
overlie the older sequences and the granites in the Maikala Range and Abujhmar
plateau region. The Mesoproterozoic Pakhal Supergroup occupies the Godavari
valley region in the southwestern part bordering Andhra Pradesh and
Maharashtra. The Meso-Neoproterozoic Chhattisgarh Group of rocks occupies the
plains of Chhattisgarh region. The cover sediments of Indravati-Sabari-and Pairi Groups
are equivalent of Indravati Group and occupy the Jagdalpur plateau.
Interestingly we find blend of tribal and Odia culture. Rocks of
kimberlite affinity intrude in to the Indravati and Khariar sediments
and in the gneisses some of which are diamondiferous. Laterite and
bauxite forms cappings at number of places over these rocks
in Keskal-Amabera area.
Gujarath
Gujarat
exposes rocks from Precambrian era to Holocene period. It has three different
geographic regions, namely eastern Gujrat , Kutch and Saurashtra/Kathiawar. The
eastern Gujarat shows a general southwesterly and west-ward slope
from the dissected and denuded hilly terrain of Preacambrians to the
alluvial plain, which gradually merges into the sea and gulf. Shield area of
Gujarat lies in the eastern part and is occupied by the Archaean -Prechampaner
Gneissic Complex and Prelunavada Gneissic Complex (equivalent to BGC of
Rajasthan); Palaeo-to MesoProterozoic Aravalli and Delhi supergroups
and Neoproterozoic Godhra-, Erinpura- and IdarGranites. The Mesozoic rocks are
exposed in Kutch region and in northern part of Saurashtra Plateau.
It is represented by the Pachchham, the Chari, the Katrol and the
Bhuj formations in Kutch region and by the Dhrangadhra Group, the Wadhwan Group
in Saurashtra Plateau and the Lameta Formation and the Bagh Beds in Kheda,
Panchmahals and Vadodara districts (Eastern Gujarat). The Saurashtra Plateau in
the west is separated from the eastern Gujarats undulating terrain by
alluvial plain. The basalt dominated 'Deccan Trap' with restricted acid and
intermediate volcanics and intrusive is exposed
as thick pile in the southern part of Gujarat, Saurashtra and as
relatively less thick horizons in Kutch Region.
It
represents broadly the geological time span from 80 Ma to 60 Ma. Tertiary rocks
(laterite, clay and carbonaceous shale, lignite etc.) which overlap
these volcanics, are present mainly in the southern part of Kutch region,
western and southern part of Saurashtra Plateau and also in the area bounded by
Narmada and Tapi rivers in the plains of South Gujarat. Pleistocene age of
Gujarat is represented by foraminifera bearing aeolian as well as marine
limestone. About 50% area of Gujarat is covered by unconsolidated Holocene
sediments, majority of which is older and younger flood plain
deposits of Narmada, Tapi, Mahi, Sabarmati and Banas rivers. The coastal belt
surrounding the Gulf of Kachchh and Gulf of Kutch is dominated by younger and
older tidal flat deposits. The state of Gujarat is well known for dinosaurian
remains represented by skeletal remains and nests recorded from Kheda district.
The state of Gujarat is endowed with a number of mineral deposits viz.,
bauxite, bentonite, base metals, fireclay, fluorite, fuller's earth, limestone,
chalk, glass sand, manganese, graphite, lignite, petroleum and natural gas,
building and dimension stones.
Remarks:
Though
the above description is not in minute detail, has been borrowed from
Geological Survey of India, it suggests the following-
1) We can see clearly that the
geological formation of Dravidian speaking regions stands apart from the
geology of the north India. We find Dravidian languages prominently being
spoken in the regions those geologically strongly differ from rest of the subcontinent.
Though the landmass is connected with the Northern India, its peculiar
formation, age, overall mineral composition and deposits separate it by
tectonic/structural boundaries.
2) The flora and fauna, too,
is rather quite different in both the parts of the country. The peculiar food
habits have been developed since ages owing to its climate and
environment, possessing inherently the mineral qualities of the soil, of the
southern part of India and elsewhere have impacted the genetic structures that
is now being identified as having different origins.
3) Geology of North India,
though varies region to region, has unique base formation, quite different than
of southern regions. The thrust region created by the collision that
caused rising of the Himalayas, underneath has maintained
the ancient formations in changed positions and causing the different mix of
the surface mineral distribution. This may have resulted in rise of different
dialects though falling under same linguistic group.
However, we can see other peculiarities about
the regions wherever tribal population and distinct languages do exist. The
regions having some or other excessive mineral deposit have impacted the
cultural and linguistic patterns of the local habitants.
4) We can notice that on the
boundary zones, where two typical geologies meet, we find the lingo-cultural
changes. For example, as we cross Kolhapur region of Maharashtra to enter in
Karnataka, we find the surface rock structures gradually changing with the
language, pronouncing patterns of the people till the shadow zone finally
merges with the southern landmass.
5) It can be said that the
major distinction in the geology of both the
regions have caused emergence of different linguistic
groups. The same applies to the North-Eastern and North-Western regions where
we come across the different geological formations, and hence different
dialects. The larger is geological variation with adjoining regions; larger is
the gap between linguistic similarities.
No any other explanation, such as movement of the people, can satisfactorily
answer the formation of the linguistic groups.
6) There
is close relationship between the language spoken and the general
psychology of the people living in the certain regions having unique geological
conditions for generations.
7) Exchanges
or borrowings do influence the course of the specific languages, but
that too are adopted in a manner that is suitable to their psychology. The borrowed vocabulary or terms do not
remain the same in its original form when adopted but are blended in the
peculiar local patterns, sometimes so much so that the original form has to be
traced with efforts.
Looking at the above, we can surmise that the local
geographies and geological patterns are the most influential factors on the
general psychology of the people living for generations in certain regions
that causes emergence of the certain languages or dialects. The
relationship between the languages is not as much biological as is geological.
The land determines the course of the language and the culture as both depends
on the general psychology of the people.
The
proponents of migration theories to solve riddle of the languages should
seriously look in to the geological connection, so that the problem of the
genetic groups also can be solved to give full stop to the racial
theories.
Trying to derive the caste or racial dynamics in genomic
data could be a wrong and misguiding approach. Using the same genetic data
attempting to prove the Aryans were indigenous is another falsity studded with
supremacist approach. The migrations is a historical fact and will remain a
trend in future as well, but connecting spread of the language solely to it is
incorrect as geology plays major role in the evolution of the languages,
culture and physical structures of the people. The M17 distribution or R1a is
not a product of the migrations but it is natural development caused by the
geological features of the lands people live in.
*
Ref.:
1. “The
Indo-Aryan Controversy: Evidence and Inference in Indian History”, edited by Edwin Francis Bryant, Laurie L.
Patton
2. “How genetics is settling the
Aryan migration debate” by Tony Joseph, The Hindu, 16th June, 2017
3. Psychology: The Science
of Mind and Behaviour By Richard Gross, pub- Hachette, UK.
4. “Massive migration from the steppe was a
source for Indo-European languages in Europe” by Wolfgang Haak, Iosif Lazaridis, David Reich et al, Published in Nature, 11th
June, 15
5. “Effects of geomagnetic
activity variations on the physiological and psychological state of
functionally healthy humans: Some results of Azerbaijani studies” by Elchin S.Babayev, Aysel A. Allahverdiyeva et al, published in Science Direct, Volume 40, Issue 12, 2007
6.” Tools from evolutionary biology shed new light on the
diversification of langhuages” by SC Levinson, RD Gray . Online can be accessed
at https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22336727
7. Genetic Evidence for Recent Population
Mixture in India, Priya Moorjani, online can be accessed at
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3769933/
