The Languages of Harappa - People Fas Harvard

(without premature conflation of similar characters) is not yet available (see Wells 1998,
1999), -- not to speak of the even more indispensable catalogues of all possible sign
combinations. A lot of preparatory work has to be done still before we can again try to
actually decipher the inscriptions.
One may then try to argue that, after all, the language of the Indus documents was
Dravidian, if it was the dominant, or one of the dominant languages of Sindh at the time.
(However, the language of the Indus documents seems to be the same as that in the Panjab,
even if there are typical dialect deviations, apparently reflected also in some special signs
used only in Harappa and others only in Mohenjo Daro, see Wells 1998). Dravidian might
have been the traders' language of the Indus area. However, as has been pointed out above,
if this had been the case, one would expect some remnants of Dravidian in the earliest level
of the - already Panjab centered - RV. At least some words such as 'village chief' or 'trade,
trader' should be of Dravidian origin (see above). This is not the case 21 in the earliest RV
(books 4-6). In addition, such a scheme would involve an elaborate -- and very unlikely -scenario
of dominance and subsequent replacement of languages: the complete
disappearance of Dravidian influence in the Panjab between c. 1900/1700 BCE and its
sudden re-emergence at c. 1450/1300 BCE.
§ 15. Towards a new paradigm
From the preceding paragraphs it transpires that we should strive for a new
paradigm of the early linguistic (and ethnic) situation of South Asia. Using the earliest
21 One may investigate, in the oldest RV books 4-6, vaij 4.43.6 which Geldner translated by '(flying) merchant' /
'der (fliegende) Kaufmann' (??), 5.45.6, 'merchant', våa 'trade?' in (pra-)våá 4.24.9 'trade' (Kuiper 1955: 168; cf.
also våa,våī 'voice, music,' våicī 'similar to voice'). Mayrhofer EWA II 494 derives va-ij 'winning goods' from
van (vasu ... van) 'with context free --'. But does a context free -- really exist in the RV? (Discussion by
Mayrhofer 1968, 509-517, contrast Kuiper 1991). Clearly, the meaniung of RV vaij, in their mythological
contexts is not sure (personal name? e.g., with Munda suffix, *pan-i'c?)
Kuiper 1955: 168 combines + pravåam with Drav. pa but concedes that these etymologies 'do not
remove the difficulties'. Indeed, the phrase is open to discussion as well (ví duhanti prá våám). Hillebrandt 1927-
29: I.226 translates våa 'reed, Soma stem' (cf. båa 6.75.17, Kuiper 1948: 34, but see EWA II 541), pa does not yet
mean 'to barter'' and the Pai are demonic (see immediately). Do we have to compare Munda: Sant. pañca 'to
lend, to borrow', pante 'line, row, to agree together'?
However, RV Pai (4.25.7, 4.51.3, 4.58.4 late; 5.34.7, 5.61.8 late, 6.13.3, 6.20.4, 6.31.2, 6.39.2, 6.20.4, 6.31.2,
6.39.2, 6.45.31, 6.53.3, 6.53.5, 6.53.7, 6.61.1, 6,) cannot be connected with the words for 'trade', and pa 'to barter' is
found only in post-RV texts, such as KS, prapaa 'trade' AV, pratipaa AV 'barter, exchange', see EWA II 69; cf.
also DEDR 3884 pa 'work, service', paikkan 'carpenter'. S. Palaniappan wants to connect (by letter 1999) DEDR
3891 Old Tam. pa 'field' (Puanånūu 16.16), paai, paai (cf. Kan. paeya, paya), paiyam, paaiyam
'farming', paai 'to thrive, flourish'. He reconstructs *pai 'flourishing rich farmer' and compares DEDR 3884
Mal. paiyan, a caste of cultivators.
However, the RV Pai are (rich) 'foreigners', and the prominent Vala myth actually talks only about
their cattle, not grain. They are on the boundary line between demons and are half-mythical, human enemies,
and may reflect past encounters, if the connection with the *Parna (Greek form Parnoi) in the BMAC area is
correct; it echoes the ethnic term for foreigners an enemies *Dåsa (N.Iran. Dåha, Greek Daai, Avestan Dha, cf.
Dahåka, etc., see Witzel forthc.). All these would be Central Asian reminiscences.