The Cambridge History of India, Vol. I: Ancient India v1.c17.32

v1.c17.32

As little do the Rigvedic Indians appear to have been in contact with the Semitic peoples of Babylon. The term Bekanāṭa which occurs along with Paṇi in one passage has been thought to be a reference to some Babylonian word: though the Indian Bīkaner is much more plausible as its origin. Bṛibu, mentioned once as a most generous giver and apparently also as a Paṇi, has been connected by Weber² with Babylon, but without ground: more specious is the attempt to see a Babylonian origin for the word *manā* found in one passage only of the Rigveda where it is accompanied by the epithet ‘golden.’ The Greek *mina*, presumably borrowed from the Phoenicians, is a plausible parallel; but the passage can be explained without recourse to this theory¹. A Semitic origin has been claimed for the word *paraçu*, ‘axe,’ but this too is far from certain. There is nothing in the Rigvedic mythology or religion which demands derivation from a non-Āryan source, though it has been urged that the small group of the Ādityas, whose physical characteristics are very faint and whose abstract nature is marked, is derived from a Semitic civilisation². In the succeeding period the Nakshatras or lunar mansions may more probably be ascribed to a Semitic source; but in the Rigveda the Nakshatras are practically unknown, appearing as such only in the latest portions. It is therefore impossible to assume that the great Semitic civilisations had any real contact with India in the Rigvedic age.