7629973996

56

to draw attention to the fact that not everything the Vedic Aryans introduced into Indian civilization is necessarily »Aryan«. We do not know the migration tracts of the Indo-European conąuerors of Punjab, but Yedo-Asianic connections, whatever be their interpreta-tion, do undoubtedly exist, and, conseąuently, the probability of the pre8ence of un-Aryan elements, already in the Rig-Veda, is very great. In all the Vedic pantheon only the Indo-European origin of Dyaus is above suspicion, as even Indra may be influenced by Asianic myths, if we are to aceept the theory that the Vedic subduer of Vritra is to be identified with the Hittite Inaras ^ł. It was still believed, not long ago, that the finding of a morę or less plausible parallelism between Greek, Iranian and Indian facts afforded sufficient ground to draw the conclusion that we are in presence of an inheritance dating from the Indo-European com-munity. We know to-day that, in numerous instances, this parallelism is due, not to pre-ethnic kinship, but to the eommon sub8tratum of pre-Semitic and pre-Indo-European civilizations of Aegea, Western Asia and India*.

We cannot ignore yet another difficulty. Whereas Elamitic, Sumerian, and, to a great extent, also Hittite documents afford valuable materiał for the study of the pre-Semitic and pre-Indo-European civilization of Western Asia, we still know very little about pre-Aryan India. It is true that the discoveries of Mohenjo Daro and Harappa have put an end to the legend of Vedic Aryans, the conąuerors of alleged barbarie natives, being the only originators of Indian civilization. Numerous details point to links between India and the oldest ciyilizations around the Persian Golf. Nevertheless these connections are not yet sufficiently elear, just as the relation between Mohenjo Daro, Brahmanism, and espe-cially Buddhism, is still obscure. Opportunities for reckless hy-

¹ Cf. P. Kretschmer, Kleinasiatische Forschungen, vol. I, 2, 1929, p. 314. — J. Charpentier, Monde Oriental, vol. 25, 1931 and A. Gótze, Klein-asien (Kulturgeschichte des Alten Orients, vol. III, 1, 1933, p. 59) do not accept this hypothesis.

* H. Gttntert, Der Arische Weltkónig und Heiland, 1922, p. 342: »Was fraher der Forschung XJrverwandtschaft schien, stellt sich immer deutlicher ais Ergebnis vorhistorischer, frtther Entlehnung heraus«. Cf. also the remarks of J. Przyluski, L’inflnence iranienne en Grece et dans 1’Inde. Revne de rUniversite de Bruxelles, Nr. 3, 1932, p. 286.