Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

The Arctic Home in the Vedas c11: Chapter VIII. The Cows' Walk

The Arctic Home in the Vedas c11

Language
English

Contents

Chapter VIII. The Cows' Walk

c11.1

The Pravargya ceremony —Symbolises the revival of the yearly sacrifice —Milk representing seed heated in *Gharma* or *Mahâvîra* —Mantras used on the occasion of pouring milk into it —The two creating the five, and the ten of Vivasvat —Indicate the death of the year after five seasons or ten months —The tradition about the sun falling beyond the sky —Annual *Sattras* —Their type, the *Gavâm-ayanam* or the Cows' walk —Lasted for 10 or 12 months according to the Aitareya Brâhmana —Two passages from the Taittirîya Samhitâ describing the *Gavâm-ayanam* —Mention 10 months' duration of the *Sattra*, but give no reason except that it was an ancient practice —Plainly indicates an ancient sacrificial year of ten months —Comparison with the old Roman year of ten months or 304 days —How the rest of 360 days were disposed of by the Romans not yet known —They represented a long period of darkness according to the legend of the Dashagvas —Thus leading to the Arctic theory —Prof. Max Muller on the threefold nature of cows in the Vedas —Cows as animals, rain and dawns or days in the Rig-Veda —Ten months' Cows' walk thus means the ten months' duration of ordinary days and nights —350 oxen of Helios —Implies a night of ten days —The stealing of Apollon's oxen by Hermes —Cows stolen by Vritra in the Vedas —Represent the stealing of day-cows thereby causing the long night —Further sacrificial evidence from the Vedas —Classification of the Soma-sacrifices —Difference between *Ekâha* and *Ahîna* —A hundred nightly sacrifices —Annual *Sattras* like the *Gavâm-ayanam* —Model out-line or scheme of ceremonies therein —Other modifications of the same —All at present based upon a civil year —But lasted for ten months in ancient times —Night-sacrifices now included amongst day-sacrifices —The reason why the former extend only over 100 nights is yet unexplained —Appropriately accounted for on the Arctic theory —Soma juice extracted at night in the *Atirâtra*, or the trans-nocturnal sacrifice even now —The analogy applied to other night-sacrifices—*Râtri Sattras* were the sacrifices of the long night in ancient times —Their object —Soma libations exclusively offered to Indra to help him in his fight against Vala —*Shata-râtra* represented the maximum duration of the long night —Corroborated by Aditi's legend of seven months' sunshine —Explains why Indra was called *Shata-kratu* in the Purâṇas —The epithet misunderstood by Western scholars —Similarity between Soma and Ashvamedha sacrifices —The epithet *Shata-kratu*, unlike other epithets, never paraphrased in the Vedas —Implies that it was peculiar or proper to Indra —Dr. Haug's view that *kratu* means a sacrifice in the Vedas —Hundred forts or *puraḥ* (cities) of Vritra —Explained as hundred seats of darkness or nights —Legend of Tishtrya's fight with Apaosha in the Avesta —Only a reproduction of Indra's fight with Vritra —Tishtrya's fight described as lasting from one to a hundred nights in the Avesta —Forms an independent corroboration of hundred nightly Soma sacrifices —The phrase *sato-karahe* found in the Avesta —The meaning and nature of *Ati-râtra* discussed —Means a trans-nocturnal Soma sacrifice at either end of the long night —Production of the cycle of day and night therefrom —Hence a fitting introduction to the annual *Sattras* —Marked the close of the long night and the beginning of the period of sunshine —*Sattra*, *Ati-râtra*, night-sacrifices and *Ati-râtra* again thus formed the yearly round of sacrifices in ancient times —Clearly indicate the existence of a long darkness of 100 nights in the ancient year —Ancient sacrificial system thus corresponded with the ancient year —Adaptation of both to the new home effected by the Brâhmaṇas, like Numa's reform in the old Roman Calender —The importance of the results of sacrificial evidence.

c11.2

The legend of the Dashagvas, who completed their sacrifices during ten months, is not the only relic of the ancient year preserved in the sacrificial literature. The Pravargya ceremony, which is described in the Aitareya Brâhmaṇa, (I, 18-22), furnishes us with another instance, where a reference to the old year seems to be clearly indicated. Dr. Haug, in his translation of the Aitareya Brâhmaṇa, has fully described this ceremony in a note to I, 18. It lasts for three days and precedes the animal and the Soma sacrifice, as no one is allowed to take part in the Soma feast without having undergone this ceremony. The whole ceremony symbolises the revival of the sun or the sacrificial ceremony (yajña), which, for the time being, is preserved as seed in order that it may grow again in due time (Ait. Br. I, 18). Thus one of the chief implements used in the ceremony is a peculiar earthen pot called *Gharma* or *Mahâvîra*. Placing it on the Vedic altar the Adhvaryu makes a circle of clay called *khara*, because it is made of earth brought on the back of a donkey to the sacrificial ground. He places the pot on the circle and heats it so as to make it quite hot (*gharma*). It is then lifted by means of two *shaphas* (two wooden pieces), and then milking a cow, the milk is poured into the heated pot and mixed with the milk of a goat whose kid is dead. After this has been done, the contents of the *Mahâvîra* are thrown into the Âhavanîya fire. But all the contents of the pot are not thus thrown away, for the Hotri is described as eating the remainder of the contents of the *Gharma*, which are said to be full of honey, full of sap, full of food and quite hot. The Aitareya Brâhmaṇa (I, 22) gives us a rational of this ceremony as follows, "The milk in the vessel is the seed. This seed (in the shape of milk) is poured in Agni (fire) as the womb of the gods for production, for Agni is the womb of the gods." This explanation proves the symbolic nature of the ceremony, and shows that the sun, the sacrifice or the year is thus preserved as seed for some time, and then revived at the proper season. The Mantra or the verse, which is recited on the occasion of pouring the milk into the *Mahâvîra*, is taken from the Ṛig-Veda VIII, 72 (61), 8, and it is very likely that the verse was selected not simply on account of mere verbal correspondence. The hymn, where this verse occurs, is rather obscure. But the verse itself, as well as the two preceding verses (VIII, 72 (61), 6-7-8), present no verbal difficulty and may be translated as follows:—

c11.3

6. And now that mighty and great chariot of his, with horses, (as well as) the line of his chariot, is seen."

c11.4

“7. The seven milk the one, and the two create the five, on the ocean’s loud-sounding bank.”

c11.5

“8. With the ten of Vivasvat, Indra, by his three-fold hammer, caused the heaven’s bucket to drop down.” ¹

c11.6

¹ Ṛig. VIII, 72, 6-8,—उतो न्वस्य यन्महद्वावद्योजनं बृहत् । श्यामा रथस्य वदृशे ॥ दुहन्ति सप्तैकमुप द्वा पञ्च सृजतः । तीर्थे सिन्धोरधिस्वरे ॥ आ दशभिर्विवस्वत इन्द्रः कोशमचुच्यवीत् । खेद्या त्रिवृता दिवः ॥

c11.7

Here, first of all, we are told that his (sun’s) chariot, the great chariot with horses, has become visible, evidently meaning that the dawn has made its appearance on the horizon. Then the seven, probably the seven Hotṛis, or seven rivers, are said to milk this dawn and produce the two. This milking is a familiar process in the Ṛig-Veda, and in one place the cows of the morning are said to be milked from darkness (I, 33, 10). The two evidently mean day and night, and as soon as they are milked, they give rise to the five seasons. The day and the night are said to be the two mothers of Sûrya in III, 55, 6, and here they are the mothers of the five seasons. What becomes after the expiry of the seasons is described in the eighth verse. It says that with the ten of Vivasvat, or with the lapse of ten months, Indra with his three-fold hammer shook down the heavenly jar. This means that the three storing places of the aerial waters (VII, 101, 4) were all emptied into the ocean at this time, and along with it the sun also went to the lower world, for sunlight is described to be three-fold in VII, 101, 2, and Sâyaṇa there quotes the Tait-tirîya Saṃhitâ (II, 1, 2, 5), which says that the sun has three lights, the morning light being the Vasanta, the mid-day the Gṛishma, and the evening the Sharad. The verse, therefore, obviously refers to the three-fold courses of waters in the heaven and the three-fold light of the sun; and all this is said to come to an end with the ten of Vivasvat. The sun and the sacrifice are then preserved as seed to be re-generated some time after,—a process symbolised in the Pravargya ceremony.

c11.8

idea of the sun dropping from heaven is very common in the sacrificial literature. Thus in the Aitareya Brâhmaṇa (IV, 18) we read, “The gods, being afraid of his (sun’s) falling beyond them, being turned upside down, supported him by placing above him the highest worlds”;¹ and the same idea is met with in the Tâṇḍya Brâhmaṇa (IV, 5, 9-11). The words “falling beyond” (*parâchas atipâtât*) are very important, inasmuch as they show that the sun dropped into regions that were on the yonder side. One of the Ashvin’s protege is also called Chyavâna, which word Prof. Max Muller derives from *chyu* to drop. The Ashvins are said to have restored him to youth, which, being divested of its legendary form, means the rehabilitation of the sun that had dropped into the nether world. The Pravargya ceremony, which preserves the seed of the sacrifice, is, therefore, only one phase of the story of the dropping sun in the sacrificial literature, and the verses employed in this ceremony, if interpreted in the spirit of that ceremony, appear, as stated above, to indicate an older year of five seasons and ten months.

c11.9

¹ Ait. Brâḥ. IV, 18—तस्य पराचोऽतिपाताद्विभयुस्तं परमैः स्वर्गैर्लोकैः परस्तात्प्रत्यस्तभ्नुवन् । Also cf. Tâṇḍya Brâḥ. IV, 5, 9-11.

c11.10

But the Mantras used in the Pravargya ceremony are not so explicit as one might expect such kind of evidence to be. Therefore, instead of attempting to give more evidence of the same kind,—and there are many such facts in the Vedic sacrificial literature,—I proceed to give the direct statements about the duration of the annual Sattras from the well-known Vedic works. These statements have nothing of the legendary character about them, and are, therefore, absolutely certain and reliable. It has been stated before that the institution of sacrifice is an old one, and found amongst both the Asiatic and the European branches of the Aryan race. It was, in fact, the main ritual of the religion of these people, and naturally enough every detail concerning the sacrifices was closely watched, or accurately determined by the priests, who had the charge of these ceremonies. It is true that in giving reasons for the prevalence of a particular practice, these priests sometimes indulged in speculation; but the details of the sacrifice were facts that were settled in strict accordance with custom and tradition, whatever explanations might be given in regard to their origin. But sometimes the facts were found to be so stubborn as to defy any explanation, and the priests had to content themselves with barely recording the practice, and adding that "such is the practice from times immemorial." It is with such evidence that we have now to deal in investigating the duration of the annual Sattras in ancient times.

c11.11

There are many annual Sattras like Âdityânâm-ayanam, Aṅgirasâm-ayanam, Gavâm-ayanam, &c. mentioned in the Brâhmaṇas and the Shrauta Sûtras; and, as observed by Dr. Haug, they seem to have been originally established in imitation of the sun's yearly course. They are the oldest of the Vedic sacrifices, and their duraion and other details have been all very minutely and carefully noted down in the sacrificial works. All these annual Sattras are not, however, esentially different from each other, being so many different varieties or modifications, according to circumstances, of a common model or type, and the Gavâm-ayanam is said to be this type, (vide, com. on Âshv. S. S. 11, 7, 1). Thus in the Aitareya Brâhmaṇa (IV, 17) we are told that "They hold the Gavâm-ayanam, that is, the sacrificial session called 'the Cows' walk.' The cows are the Âdityas (gods of the months). By holding the session called the Cows' walk they also hold the Adityânâm-ayanam (the walk of the Âdityas)."¹ If we, therefore, ascertain the duration of the Gavâm-ayanam, the same rule would apply to all other annual Sattras, and we need not examine the latter separately. This Gavâm-ayanam, or the Cows' walk, is fully described in three places. Once in the Aitareya Brâhmaṇa and twice in the Taittirîya Samhitâ. We begin with the Aitareya Brâhmaṇa (IV, 17), which describes the origin and duration of the Sattra as follows:—

c11.12

¹ See Dr. Haug's Ait. Brâh. Vol. II, p. 287. The original is as follows,—गवामयनेन यंति । गावो वा आदित्य आदित्यानामेव तदयनैन यंति

c11.13

¹ See Dr. Haug’s Ait. Brâh. Trans. Vol. II, p. 287. The passage is as follows,—गावो वै सत्रमासत। शफाँ छृंगाणि सिषासव्यस्तासां दशमे मासि शफाः शृंगाण्यजायंत। ता अब्रुवन् यस्मै कामायादीक्षामह्यापाम तमुत्तिष्ठामेति। ता या उत्तिष्ठंस्ता एता शृंगिण्योऽथ याः समापयिष्यामः संवत्सरमि- थ्यासत तासामश्रद्धया शृंगाणि प्रावर्तंत। ता एतास्तूपरा ऊर्जं त्वसुन्वंस्तस्मादु ताः सर्वांतूनप्राप्त्वोत्तरमुत्तिष्ठंत्यूर्जं ह्यसुन्वन् सर्वस्य वै गावः प्रेमाणं सर्वस्य चारुतां गन्ताः। सर्वस्य प्रेमाणं सर्वस्य चारुतां गच्छति य एवं वेद।

c11.14

“The cows, being desirous of obtaining hoofs and horns, held (once) a sacrificial session. In the tenth month (of their sacrifice) they obtained hoofs and horns. They said, ‘We have obtained fulfilment of that wish for which we underwent the initiation into the sacrificial rites. Let us rise (the sacrifice being finished).’ Those, that arose, are these, who have horns. Of those, who, however, sat (continued the session) saying, ‘Let us finish the year,’ the horns went off on account of their distrust. It is they, who are hornless (tûparâḥ). They (continuing their sacrificial session) produced vigour (ûrjam) Thence after (having been sacrificing for twelve months and) having secured all the seasons, they rose (again) at the end. For they had produced the vigour (to reproduce horns, hoofs, &c. when decaying). Thus the cows made themselves beloved by all (the whole world), and are beautified (decorated) by all.” 1

c11.15

Here it is distinctly mentioned that the cows first obtained the fulfilment of their desire in ten months, and a number of them left off sacrificing further. Those, that remained and sacrificed for two months more, are called ‘distrustful,’ and they had to suffer for their distrust by forfeiting the horns they had obtained. It is, therefore, clear, that this yearly Sattra, which in the Samhitâs and Brâhmaṇas is a Sattra of twelve months in imitation of the sun’s yearly course, was once completed in ten months. Why should it be so? Why was a Sattra, which is annual in its very nature and which now lasts for twelve months, once completed in ten months? How did the sacrificers obtain all the religious merit of a twelve months' sacrifice by sacrificing for ten months only? These are very important questions; but the Aitareya Brâhmaṇa neither raises them, nor gives us any clue to their solution. If we, however, go back to the Taittirîya Saṃhitâ, the oldest and most authoritative work on the sacrificial ceremonies, we find the questions distinctly raised. The Saṃhitâ expressly states that the Gavâm-ayanam can be completed in ten or twelve months, according to the choice of the sacrificer; but it plainly acknowleges its inability to assign any reason how a Sattra of twelve months could be completed in ten, except the fact that "it is an old practice sanctioned by immemorial usage." These passages are very important for our purpose, and I give below a close translation of each. The first occurs in the Taittirîya Saṃhitâ (VII, 5, 1, 1-2)¹, and may be rendered as follows:—

c11.16

¹ Taitt. Saṃ. VII, 5, 1, 1-2,—गावो वा एतत् सत्रमासताशृंगाः सतीः शृंगाणि नो जायंता इति कामेन। तासां दश मासा निष्पन्ना आसन्नथ शृंगाण्यजायंत ता उत्तिष्ठन्नरात्स्मेत्यथ यासां नाजायंत ताः संवत्सरमाप्त्वोत्तिष्ठन्नरात्स्मेति। यासां चाजायंत यासां च न ता उभयीरुदतिष्ठन्नरात्स्मेति। गोसत्रं वै संवत्सरो य एवं विद्वँसः संवत्सरमुपयंत्युध्र्वंत्येव तस्मान्नूपरा वार्षिकौ मासौ पर्वा चरति सत्राभिजितं ह्यस्यै तस्मात्संवत्सरसत्रं यत्किंच गृहे क्रियते तदाप्तमविरुद्धमभिजितं क्रियते।

c11.17

"The cows held this sacrificial session, desiring that 'being hornless let horns grow unto us.' Their session lasted (for) ten months. Then when the horns grew (up), they rose saying, 'We have gained.' But those, whose (horns) were not grown, they rose after completing the year, saying 'We have gained.' Those, that had their horns grown, and those that had not, both rose saying 'We have gained.' Cows' session is thus the year (year-session). Those, who know this, reach the year and prosper verily. Therefore, the hornless (cow) moves

c11.18

(grazes) pleased during the two rainy months. This is what the Sattra has achieved for her. Therefore, whatever is done in the house of one performing the yearly Sattra is successfully, timely and properly done.”

c11.19

This account slightly differs from that given in the Aitareya Brâhmaṇa. In the Saṁhitâ the cows, whose session lasted for twelve months, are said to be still hornless; but instead of getting vigour (ûrjam), they are said to have obtained as a reward for their additional sitting, the pleasure of comfortable grazing in the two rainy months, during which, as the commentator observes, the horned cows find their horns an impediment to graze freely in the field, where new grass has grown up. But the statement regarding the duration of the Sattra, viz., that it lasted for ten or twelve months, is the same both in the Saṁhitâ and in the Brâhmaṇa. The Saṁhitâ again takes up the question in the next Anuvâka (VII, 5, 2, 1-2)¹, and further describes the cows' session as follows:—

c11.20

¹ Taitt. Saṁ. VII, 5, 2, 1-2,—गावो वा एतत् सत्रमासताशृंगाः सतीः शृंगाणि सिषासंतीतासां दश मासा निष्पन्ना आसन्नथ शृंगाण्यजायंत ता अब्रुवन्नरास्मोनत्तिष्ठामाव तं काममरुत्स्महि येन कामेन न्यषदाभेति तासामु त्वा अब्रुवन्नथो वा यावतीर्वाऽऽसामहा एवमौ द्वादशौ मासौ संवत्सरं संपाद्योत्तिष्ठामेति तासां द्वादशे मासि शृंगाणि प्रावर्तन्त श्रद्धया वाऽश्रद्धया वा ता इमा यास्तूपरा उभय्यो वाव ता आधुर्वन् याश्च शृंगासुन्वन् याश्चोर्जमवारुंधन्निति दशसु मासुत्तिष्ठन्ति द्वादशसु य एवं वेद पदेन खलु वा एते यंति विन्दति खलु वै पदेन मन्तद्वा एतत्सत्रमयनं तस्मादेतत्तद्दोसनि ।

c11.21

“The cows held this sacrificial session, being hornless (and) desiring to obtain horns. Their session lasted (for) ten months; then when the horns grew (up), they said, ‘We have gained, let us rise, we have obtained the desire for which we sat (commenced the session).’ Half, or as many, of them as said, ‘We shall certainly sit for the two twelfth (two last) months, and rise after completing the year,’ (some) of them had horns in the twelfth month by trust, (while) by distrust those that (are seen) hornless (remained so). Both, that is, those who got horns, and those who obtained vigour (ûrjam), thus

c11.22

attained their object. One, who knows this, prospers, whether rising (from the sacrifice) in the tenth month or in the twelfth. They indeed go by the path (padena); he going by the path indeed attains (the end). This is that successful ayanam (session). Therefore, it is go-sani (beneficial to the cows).”

c11.23

This passage, in its first part, repeats the story given in the previous Anuvâka of the Samhitâ and the Aitareya Brâhmaṇa with slight variations. But the latter part contains two important statements: firstly that whether we complete the sacrifice within ten months or twelve months, the religious merit or fruit obtained is the same in either case, for both are said to prosper equally; and secondly, this is said to be the case because it is the ‘path,’ or Sâyaṇa explains “an immemorial custom.” The Samhitâ is, in fact, silent as to the reason why an annual Sattra, which ought to and as a matter of fact does now last for twelve months, could be completed in ten months; and this reticence is very remarkable, considering how the Samhitâ sometimes indulges in speculations about the origin of sacrificial rites. Any how we have two facts clearly established, (1) that at the time of the Taittirîya Samhitâ the Gavâm-ayanam, the type of all annual Sattras, could be completed in ten months; and (2) that no reason was known at the time, as to why a Sattra of twelve months could be thus finished in ten, except that it was ‘an immemorial custom.’ The Tâṇḍya Brâhmaṇa, IV, 1, has a similar discussion about Gavâm-ayanam, and clearly recognises its two-fold character so far as its duration is concerned. Sâyaṇa and Bhaṭṭa-Bhâskara, in their commentaries on the Taittirîya Samhitâ, cannot, therefore, be said to have invented any new theory of their own as regards the double duration of this annual Sattra. We shall discuss later on what is denoted by “cows” in the above passages. At present we are concerned with the duration of the Sattra; and if we compare the above matter-of-fact statements in the Samhitâ about the double duration of the annual Sattra with the legend of the Dashagvas sacrificing for ten months, the conclusion, that in ancient times the ancestors of the Vedic Aryas completed their annual sacrificial session in ten months, becomes irresistible. This duration of the Sattra must have been changed and all such Sattras made to last for twelve months, when the Vedic people came to live in regions where such an annual session was impossible. But conservatism in such matters is so strong that the old practice must have outlived the change in the calendar, and it *had* to be recognised as an alternative period of duration for this Sattra in the Samhitâs. The Taittirîya Samhitâ had thus to record the alternative period, stating that it is an ancient practice, and I think it settles the question, so far as the duration of these Sattras in ancient times is concerned. Whatever reasons we may assign for it, it is beyond all doubt that the oldest annual Sattras lasted only for ten months.

c11.24

But the Taittirîya Samhitâ is not alone in being thus unable to assign any reason for this relic of the ancient calendar, or the duration of the annual Sattra. We still designate the twelfth month of the European solar year as *December*, which word etymologically denotes the tenth month, (Latin *decem*, Sans. *dashan*, ten; and *ber* Sans. *vâra*, time or period), and we all know that Numa added two months to the ancient Roman year and made it of twelve months. Plutarch, in his life of Numa, records another version of the story, *viz.*, that Numa, according to some, did not add the two months, but simply transferred them from the end to the beginning of the year. But the names of the months clearly show that this could not have been the case, for the enumeration of the months by words indicating their order, as the fifth or *Quintilis* (old name for July), the sixth or *Sixtilis*, (old name for August), the seventh or *September* and so on the rest in their order, cannot, after it is once begun, be regarded to have abruptly stopped at *December*, allowing only the last two months to be differently named, Plutarch has, therefore, rightly observed that "we have a proof in the name of the last (month) that the Roman year contained, at first, ten months only, and not twelve¹." But if there was any doubt on the point, it is now removed by the analogy of the Gavâm-ayanam and the legends of the Dashagvas and Dîrghatamas. Macrobius (Saturnal. Lib. 1. Chap. 12) confirms the story of Numa's adding, and not simply transposing, two months to the ancient year of ten months. What the Avesta has to say on this subject we shall see later on where traditions about the ancient year amongst the other Aryan races will also be considered. Suffice it to say for the present that, according to tradition, the ancient Roman year consisted only of ten months, and like the duration of the Gavâm-ayanam, it was subsequently changed into a year of twelve months; and yet, so far as I know, no reason has yet been discovered, why the Roman year in ancient times was considered to be shorter by two months. On the contrary, the tendency is either to explain away the tradition some how as inconvenient, or to ignore it altogether as incredible. But so long as the word December is before us, and we know how it is derived, the tradition cannot be so lightly set aside. The Encyclopædia Britanica (s. v. calendar) records the ancient tradition that the oldest Roman year of Romulus was of ten months of 304 days, and observes "it is not known how the remaining days were disposed of." If, with all the resources of modern science at our command, we have not yet been able to ascertain why the oldest Roman year was of ten months only, and how the remaining days were disposed of, we need not be surprised if the Taittirîya Samhitâ refrained from speculating on the point and contented itself with stating that such was the 'path' or the old custom or practice handed down from generation to generation from times immemorial.

c11.25

¹ See Plutarch's Lives, translated into English by the Rev. John and William Langhorne (Ward, Lock & Co.), p. 54, f.

c11.26

The Arctic theory, however, now throws quite a new light on these ancient traditions, Vedic as well as Roman; and if we take the *Gavâm-ayanam* of ten months and the old Roman year of ten months as relics of the period when the ancestors of both these races lived together within the circumpolar regions, there is no difficulty of explaining how the remaining days were disposed of. It was the period of the long night,—a time when Indra fought with Vala, to regain the cows imprisoned by the latter, and Hercules killed the giant Cacus, a three-headed fire-vomiting monster, who had carried off Hercules' cows and hid them in a cave, dragging them backwards in order that the foot-marks might not be traced. When the Aryan people migrated southwards from this ancient home they had to change this calendar to suit their new home by adding two more months to the old year. But the traces of the old calendar could not be completely wiped off, and we have still sufficient evidence, traditional or sacrificial, to warrant us in holding that a year of ten months followed by a night of two months was known in the Indo-Germanic period—a conclusion, which is further confirmed by Teutonic myths and legends, as explained by Prof. Rhys, whose views will be found summarised in a subsequent chapter.

c11.27

The Taittirîya Samhitâ and the Aitareya Brâhmaṇa speak of the *Gavâm-ayanam* as being really held by the cows. Was it really a session of these animals? Or was it something else? The Aitareya Brâhmaṇa, we have seen, throws out a suggestion that ‘the cows are the Âdityas,’ that is, the month-gods, and the Cows' session is really the session of the monthly sun-gods.¹ Comparative mythology now fully bears out the truth of this remarkable suggestion put forward by the Brâhmaṇa. Cows, such as we meet them in the mythological legends, represent days and nights of the year, not only in the Vedic but also in the Greek mythology; and we can, therefore, now give a better account of the origin of this sacrificial session than that it was a session of bovine animals for the purpose of obtaining horns. Speaking of cows in the Aryan mythology, Prof. Max Muller in his *Contributions to the Science of Mythology* (Vol. II. p. 761) writes as follows:—

c11.28

¹ See Aitareya Brâh. IV, 17, quoted *supra*; गवामयनेन यंति । गावो वा आदित्या आदित्यानामेव तदयनैन यंति ।

c11.29

"There were thus three kinds of cows, the real cows, the cows in the dark cloud (rain = milk), and the cows stepping forth from the dark stable of the night (the rays of the morning). These three are not always easy to distinguish in the Veda, nay, while we naturally try to distinguish between them, the poets themselves seem to delight in mixing them up. In the passage quoted above (I, 32, 11), we saw how the captive waters were compared to cows that had been stolen by Paṇi (*niruddhâḥ âpaḥ Paṇinâ iva gâvaḥ*), but what is once compared in the Veda is soon identified. As to the Dawn, she is not only compared to a cow, she is called the cow straight out. Thus when we read, R.V. I, 92, 1, ‘These dawns have made a light, on the eastern half of the sky, they brighten their splendour, the bright cows approach, the mothers,’ the cows, *gâvaḥ*, can only be the dawns themselves, the plural of dawn being constantly in the Veda used where we should use the singular. In R.V. I, 93, 4, we read that ‘Agniṣhomau deprived Paṇi of his cows and found light for many.’ Here again the cows are the dawns kept by Paṇi in the dark stable or cave of the night, discovered by Saramâ and delivered every morning by the gods of light."

c11.30

"We read in R.V. I, 62, 3, that Bṛihaspati split the rock and found the cows."

c11.31

"Of Indra it is said, II, 19, 3, that he produced the sun and found the cows; of Bṛihaspati, II, 24, 3, that he drove out the cows, that he split the cave by his word, that he hid the darkness, and lighted up the sky. What can be clearer? The Maruts also, II, 34, 1, are said to uncover the cows, and Agni,

c11.32

V, 14, 4, is praised for killing the fiends, for having overcome darkness by light, and having found the cows, water and the sun.”

c11.33

“In all these passages we find no *iva* or *na*, which would indicate that the word cow was used metaphorically. The dawns or days as they proceed from the dark stable, or are rescued from evil spirits, are spoken of directly as the cows. If they are spoken of in the plural, we find the same in the case of the Dawn (*ushas*) who is often conceived as many, as in II, 28, 2, *upâyane ushasâm gomatinâm*, ‘at the approach of the dawns with their cows.’ From that it required but a small step to speak of the one Dawn as the mother of the cows, IV, 52, 2, *mâtâ gavâm*.”

c11.34

“Kuhn thought that these cows should be understood as the red clouds of the morning. But clouds are not always present at sunrise, nor can it well be said that they are carried off and kept in prison during the night by the powers of darkness.”

c11.35

“But what is important and settles the point is the fact that these cows or oxen of the dawn or of the rising sun occur in other mythologies also and are there clearly meant for days. They are numbered as 12 × 30, that is, the thirty days of the 12 lunar months. If Hêlios has 350 oxen and 350 sheep, that can only refer to the days and to the nights of the year, and would prove the knowledge of a year of 350 days before the Aryan separation.”

c11.36

Thus the cows in mythology are the days and nights, or dawns, that are imprisoned by Paṇi, and not real living cows with horns. Adopting this explanation and substituting these metaphorical cows for *gâvaḥ* in the *Gavâm-ayanam*, it is not difficult to see that underneath the strange story of cows holding a sacrificial session for getting horns, there lies concealed the remarkable phenomenon, that, released from the clutches of Paṇi, these cows of days and nights walked on for ten months, the oldest duration of the session known as Cows’

c11.37

walk. In plain language this means, if it means anything, that the oldest Aryan year was one of ten months followed by the long night, during which the cows were again carried away by the powers of darkness. We have seen that the oldest Roman year was of ten months, and the Avesta, as will be shown later on, also speaks of ten months' summer prevailing in the Airyana Vaejo before the home was invaded by the evil spirit, who brought on ice and severe winter in that place. A year of ten months with a long night of two months may thus be taken to be known before the Aryan separation, and the references to it in the Vedic literature are neither isolated nor imaginary. They are the relics of ancient history, which have been faithfully preserved in the sacrificial literature of India, and if they were hitherto misunderstood it was because the true key required for their solution was as yet unknown.

c11.38

But as stated in the previous chapter, a year in the circumpolar region will always have a varying number of the months of sunshine according to latitude. Although, therefore, there is sufficient evidence to establish the existence of a year of ten months, we cannot hold that it was the only year known in ancient times. In fact we have seen that the legend of Aditi indicates the existence of the seven months of sunshine; and a band of thirty continuous dawns supports the same conclusion. But it seems that a year of ten months of sunshine was more prevalent, or was selected as the mean of the different varying years. The former view is rendered probable by the fact that of the Angirases of various forms (*virûpas*) the Navagvas and the Dashagvas are said to be the principal or the most important in the Rig-Veda (X, 62, 6). But whichever view we adopt, the existence of a year of seven, eight, nine, ten or eleven months of sunshine follows as a matter of course, if the ancient Aryan home was within the Arctic circle. Prof. Max Muller, in the passage quoted above, points out that the old Greek year probably consisted of 350 days, the 350 oxen of Hêlios representing the days, and 350 sheep representing the nights. He also notices that in German mythology 700 gold rings of Wieland, the smith, are spoken of, and comparing the number with 720 sons of Agni mentioned in I, 164, 11, he draws from it the conclusion that a year of 350 days is also represented in the German mythology. This year is shorter by ten days than the civil year of 360 days, or falls short of the full solar year by 15 days. It is, therefore, clear, that if a year of 350 days existed before the Aryan separation, it must have been followed by a continuous night of ten days; while, where the year was of 300 days, the long night extended over 60 days of 24 hours each. We shall thus have different kinds of long nights; and it is necessary to see if we can collect evidence to indicate the longest duration of the night known before the Aryan separation. Speaking of the cows or oxen of Hêlios, as stated in the passage quoted above, Prof. Max Muller goes on to observe:—

c11.39

The cows or oxen of Hêlios thus receive their background from the Veda, but what is told of them by Homer is by no means clear. When it is said that the companions of Odysseus consumed the oxen of Hêlios, and that they thus forfeited their return home, we can hardly take this in the modern sense of consuming or wasting their days, though it may be difficult to assign any other definite meaning to it. Equally puzzling is the fable alluded to in the Homeric hymn that Hermes stole the oxen of Apollon and killed two of them. The number of Apollon’s oxen is given as fifty (others give the number as 100 cows, twelve oxen and one bull), which looks like the number of weeks in the lunar year, but why Hermes should be represented as carrying off the whole herd and then killing two, is difficult to guess, unless we refer it to the two additional months in a cycle of four years.

c11.40

In the light of the Arctic theory the puzzle here referred to is solved without any difficulty. The stealing away or the carrying off of the cows need not now be taken to mean simple wasting of the days in the modern sense of the word; nor need we attribute such stories to the "fancy of ancient bards and story-tellers". The legend or the tradition of stealing, consuming, or carrying off the cows or oxen is but another form of stating that so many days were lost, being swallowed up in the long night that occurred at the end of the year and lasted, according to latitude, for varying periods of time. So long as every thing was to be explained on the theory of a daily struggle between light and darkness, these legends were unintelligible. But as soon as we adopt the Arctic theory the whole difficulty vanishes, and what was confused and puzzling before becomes at once plain and comprehensible. In the Vedic mythology cows are similarly said to be stolen by Vṛitra or Vala, but their number is nowhere given, unless we regard the story of Ṛijrāshva (the Red-horse) slaughtering 100 or 101 sheep and giving them to a she-wolf to devour (I, 116, 16; 117, 18), as a modification of the story of stealing the cows. The Vedic sacrificial literature does, however, preserve for us an important relic, besides the one above noted, of the older calendar and especially the long night. But in this case the relic is so deeply buried under the weight of later explanations, adaptations and emendations, that we must here examine at some length the history of the Soma sacrifices in order to discover the original meaning of the rites which are included under that general name. That the Soma sacrifice is an ancient institution is amply proved by parallel rites in the Parsi scriptures; and whatever doubt we may have regarding the knowledge of Soma in the Indo-European period, as the word is not found in the European languages, the system of sacrifices can be clearly traced back to the primeval age. Of this sacrificial system, the Soma sacrifice may, at any rate, be safely taken as the oldest representative, since it forms the main feature of the ritual of the Rig-Veda, and a whole Maṇḍala of 114 hymns in the Rig-Veda is dedicated to the praise of Soma. A careful analysis of the Soma sacrifice may, therefore, be expected to disclose, at least partially, the nature of the oldest sacrificial system of the Aryan race; and we, therefore, proceed to examine the same.

c11.41

The chief characteristic of the Soma sacrifice, as distinguished from other sacrifices, is, as the name indicates, the extraction of the Soma juice and the offering thereof to gods before drinking it. There are three libations of Soma in a day, one in the morning, one at mid-day, and the last in the evening, and all these are accompanied by the chanting of hymns during the sacrifice. These Soma sacrifices, if classed according to their duration, fall under three heads; (1) those that are performed in a single day, called Ekâhas, (2) those that are performed in more than one and less than thirteen days, called Ahînas, and (3) those that take thirteen or more than 13 days and may last even for one thousand years, called Sattras. Under the first head we have the Agniṣṭoma, fully described in the Aitareya Brāhmaṇa (III, 39-44), as the key or the type of all the sacrifices that fall under this class. There are six modifications of Agniṣṭoma, viz., Ati-agniṣṭoma, Ukthya, Ṣoḍashî, Vâjapeya, Atirâtra and Aptoryâma, which together with Agniṣṭoma, form the seven parts, kinds or modifications of the Jyotiṣṭoma sacrifice, (Ashv. S. S. VI, 11, 1). The modication chiefly consists in the number of hymns to be recited at the libations, or the manner of recitation, or the number of the Grahas or Soma-cups used on the occasion. But with these we are not at present concerned. Of the second class of Soma sacrifices, the Dvâdashâha or twelve days' sacrifice is celebrated both as Ahîna and Sattra and is considered to be very important. It is made up of three tryahas (or three days' performances, called respectively Jyotis, Go, and Ayus), the tenth day and the two Atirâtras (Ait. Br. IV, 23-4). The nine days' performance (three *tryahas*) is called the *Nava-râtra*. Side by side with this, there are, under this head, a number of Soma sacrifices extending over two nights, three nights, four nights upto twelve nights, called *dvi-râtra*, *tri-râtra* and so on (Tait. Sam. VII, I, 4,—VII, 3, 2; Ashv. Shr. Sut. X and XI; Tâṇ. Brâ. 20, 11,—24, 19). In the third class we have the annual *Sattras* and of these the *Gavâm-ayanam* is the type. Some *Sattras* which come under this class are described as extending over, 1,000 years, and a discussion is found in sacrificial works as to whether the phrase one thousand years signifies 1,000 real years, or whether it stands for 1,000 days. But we may pass it over as unnecessary for our purpose. The annual *Sattras* are the only important *Sattras* of this class, and to understand their nature we must see what a *shaḷaha* means. The word literally denotes a group of six days (*shaṭ + ahan*) and is used to denote six days' performance in the sacrificial literature. It is employed as a unit to measure a month in the same way as we now use a week, a month being made up of five *shaḷahas*. The *shaḷaha*, in its turn, consists of the daily sacrifices called, *Jyotis*, *Go*, *Ayus*, and the same three taken in the reverse order as, *Ayus*, *Go* and *Jyotis*. Every *shaḷaha*, therefore, begins and ends with a *Jyotiṣṭoma* (Ait. Br. IV, 15). The *shaḷaha* is further distinguished into *Abhiplava* and *Pṛiṣṭhya*, according to the arrangement of the *stomas* or songs sung at the Soma libations. An annual *Sattra* is, in the main, made up of a number of *shaḷahas* joined with certain special rites at the beginning, the middle and the close of the *Sattra*. The central day of the *Sattra* is called *Viṣuvân*, and stands by itself, dividing the *Sattra* into two equal halves like the wings of a house (Tait. Br. I, 2, 3, 1) ; and the rites in the latter half of the session or after the *Viṣuvân* day are performed in an order which is the reverse of that followed in performing the ceremonies in the first half of the sacrifice. The model annual *Sattra* (the *Gavâm-ayanam*) thus consists of the following parts :—

c11.42

| Parts. | Days. |
| 1. The introductory Atirâtra . . . . . | 1 |
| 2. The Chaturvimsha day, otherwise called the Ârambha-nîya (Ait. Br. IV. 12), or the Prâyanîya (Tâṇḍ. Br. IV, 2), the real beginning of the Sattra . . . . . | 1 |
| 3. Four Abhiplava, followed by one Pṛiṣṭhya ṣaḷaha each month ; continued in this way for five months... | 150 |
| 4. Three Abhiplava and one Pṛiṣṭhya ṣaḷaha . . . . . | 24 |
| 5. The Abhijit day . . . . . | 1 |
| 6. The three Svara-Sâman days . . . . . | 3 |
| 7. The Viṣhuvân or the Central day, which stands by itself, i. e., not counted in the total of the Sattra days. | |
| 8. The three Svara-Sâman days . . . . . | 3 |
| 9. The Viṣhvajit day . . . . . | 1 |
| 10. One Pṛiṣṭhya and three Abhiplava ṣaḷahas . . . . . | 24 |
| 11. One Pṛiṣṭhya and four Abhiplava ṣaḷahas each month ; continued in this way for four months . . . . . | 120 |
| 12. Three Abhiplava ṣaḷahas, one Go-ṣṭoma, one Âyu-ṣṭoma, and one Dasharâtra (the ten days of Dvâdashâha), making up one month . . . . . | 30 |
| 13. The Mahâvrata day, corresponding to the Chaturvimsha day at the beginning . . . . . | 1 |
| 14. The concluding Atirâtra . . . . . | 1 |
| | ————— |
| Total Days........ | 360. |

c11.43

It will be seen from the above scheme that there are really a few sacrificial rites which are absolutely fixed and unchangeable in the yearly Sattra. The two Atirâtras, the introductory and the concluding, the Chaturvimsha and the Mahâvrata day, the Abhijit and the Viṣhvajit, the three Svara-Sâman days on either side of Viṣhuvân, the Viṣhuvân itself, and the ten days of Dvâdashâha, making up 22 days in all, exclusive of Viṣhuvân, are the only parts that have any speciality about them. The rest of the days are all made up by Abhiplava and Pṛiṣṭhya ṣaḷahas, which, therefore, constitute what may be called the elastic or the variable part of the yearly Sattra. Thus if we want a Gavâm-ayanam of ten months, we have only to strike off five ṣaḷahas from the parts marked 3 and 11 in the above scheme. The Âdityânâm-ayanam is another modification of the above scheme in which, amongst other changes, the ṣaḷahas are all Abhiplava, instead of being a combination of Abhiplava and Pṛiṣṭhya; while if all the ṣaḷahas are Pṛiṣṭhya, along with some other changes, it becomes the Aṅgirasâm-ayanam. All these modifications do not, however, touch the total number of 360 days. But there were sacrificers, who adopted the lunar year of 354 days, and therefore, omitted 6 days from the above scheme; and their Sattra is called the Utsar-giṇâm-ayanam (Tait. Saṁ. VII, 5, 7, 1; Tāṇḍya Brâh. V, 10). In short, the object was to make the Sattra correspond with the year adopted, civil or lunar, as closely as possible. But these points are not relevant to our purpose. The Brâhmaṇas and the Shrauta Sûtras give further details about the various rites to be performed on the Viṣhuvân, the Abhijit and the Vishvajit or the Svara-sâman day. The Aitareya Âraṇyaka describes the Mahâvrata ceremony; while the Atirâtra and the Chaturviṁsha are described in the fourth book of the Aitareya Brâhmaṇa. The Chaturviṁsha is so called because the stoma to be chanted on that day is twenty-four-fold. It is the real beginning of the Sattra as the Mahâvrata is its end. The Aitareya Brâhmaṇa (IV, 14) says, "The Hotṛi pours forth the seed. Thus he makes the seed (which is poured forth) by means of the Mahâvrata day produce off-spring. For seed if effused every year is productive." This explanation shows that like the Pravargya ceremony, the Mahâvrata was intended to preserve the seed of the sacrifice in order that it might germinate or grow at the proper time. It was a sort of link between the dying and the coming year, and appropriately concluded the annual Sattra. It will be further seen that every annual Sattra had an Ati-râtra at each of its ends, and that the Dvâdashâha, or rather the ten days thereof, formed an important concluding part of the Sattra.

c11.44

The above is only a brief description, a mere out-line, of the scheme of the annual *Sattras* mentioned in sacrificial works, but it is sufficient for our purpose. We can see from it that a civil year of 360 days formed their basis, and the position of the Viṣhuvân was of great importance inasmuch as the ceremonies after it were performed in the reverse order. I have shown elsewhere what important inferences can be drawn from the position of the Viṣhuvân regarding the calendar in use at time when the scheme was settled. But we have now to consider of times which preceded the settlement of this scheme, and for that purpose we must describe another set of Soma sacrifices included under the general class of *Sattras*. It has been stated above that side by side with the *Dvâdashâha*, there are *Ahína* sacrifices of two nights, three nights, etc., up to twelve nights. But these sacrifices do not stop with the twelve nights’ performance. There are thirteen nights’, fourteen nights’, fifteen nights’, and so on upto one hundred nights’ sacrifice called *Trayodasha-râtra*, *Chaturdasha-râtra* and so on upto *Shata-râtra*. But since the *Ahína* has been defined to be a sacrifice extending over not more than twelve or less than thirteen days, all the night-sacrifices extending over a period longer than twelve nights are included in the third class, viz., the *Sattras*. If we, however, disregard this artificial division, it will be found that along with the *Ekâha*, the *Dvâdashâha* and the annual *Sattras*, there is a series of, what are termed, the night-sacrifices or *sattras* extending over a period of time from two to one hundred nights, but not further. These night-sacrifices or *Râtri-sattras* are mentioned in the Taittirîya Saṃhitâ, the Brâhmaṇas and the Shrauta Sûtras in clear terms, and there is no ambiguity about their nature, number, or duration. The Taittirîya Saṃhitâ in describing them often uses the word *Râtriḥ* (nights) in the plural, stating, that so and so was the first to institute or to perceive ‘so many nights’ meaning so many nights’ sacrifice (*vimśatim rātriḥ*, VII, 3, 9, 1; *dvātriṃśatam rātriḥ*, VII, 4, 4. 1). According to the principle of division noted above all night-sacrifices of less than thirteen nights' duration will be called *Ahīna*, while those extending over longer time upto one hundred nights will come under *Sattras*; but this is, as remarked above, evidently an artificial division, and one, who reads carefully the description of these sacrifices, cannot fail to be struck by the fact that we have here a series of night-sacrifices from two to a hundred nights, or if we include the *Ati-rātra* in this series, we have practically a set of hundred nightly Soma sacrifices, though, according to the principle of division adopted, some may fall under the head of *Ahīna* and some under that of *Sattras*.

c11.45

Now an important question in connection with these *Sattras* is why they alone should be designated ‘night-sacrifices’ (*rātri-kratus*), or ‘night-sessions’ (*rātri-sattras*)? and why their number should be one hundred? or, in other words, why there are no *night-sattras* of longer duration than one hundred nights? The *Mīmāṃsakas* answer the first part of the question by asking us to believe that the word ‘night’ (*rātriḥ*) is really used to denote ‘a day’ in the denomination of these sacrifices (Shabara on Jaimini VIII, 1, 17). The word *Dvi-rātra*, according to this theory, means ‘two days’ sacrifice, and *Shata-rātra*, a hundred days’ sacrifice. This explanation appears very good at the first sight, and as a matter of fact it has been accepted by all writers on the sacrificial ceremonies. In support of it, we may also cite the fact that as the moon was the measurer of time in ancient days, the night was then naturally more marked than the day, and instead of saying ‘ so many days’ men often spoke of ‘ so many nights,’ much in the same way as we now use the word ‘fort-night.’ This is no doubt good so far as it goes; but the question is why should there be no Soma sacrifices of a longer duration than one hundred nights? and why a gap, a serious gap, is left in the series of Soma sacrifices after one hundred nights' Sattra until we come to the annual Sattra of 360 days? Admitting that 'night' means 'day,' we have Soma sacrifices lasting from 1 to 100 days; and, if so, where was the harm to complete the series until the yearly Sattra of 360 days was reached? So far as I know, no writer on sacrificial ceremonies has attempted to answer this question satisfactorily. Of course, adopting the speculative manner of the Brâhmaṇas, we might say that there are no Soma sacrifices of longer than one hundred nights' duration, because the life of a man cannot extend beyond a hundred years, (Tait. Br. III, 8, 16, 2). But such an explanation can never be regarded as satisfactory, and the Mîmâṃsakas, who got over one difficulty by interpreting 'night' into 'day,' have practically left this latter question untouched, and, therefore, unsolved. In short, the case stands thus:--the sacrificial literature mentions a series of 99, or practically one hundred Soma sacrifices, called the 'night-sacrifices'; but these do not form a part of any annual Sattra, like the Gavâm-ayanam, nor is any reason assigned for their separate existence, nor is their duration, which never exceeds a hundred nights, accounted for. Neither the authors of the Brâhmaṇas nor those of the Shrauta Sûtras, much less Sâyaṇa and Yâska give us any clue to the solution of this question; and the Mîmâṃsakas, after explaining the word 'night,' occurring in the names of these sacrifices as equal to 'day,' have allowed these night-sacrifices to remain as an isolated group in the organised system of Soma sacrifices. Under these circumstances it would, no doubt, appear presumptuous for any one to suggest an explanation, so many centuries after what may be called the age of the Sattras. But I feel that the Arctic theory, which, we have seen, is supported by strong independent evidence, not only explains, but appropriately accounts for the original existence of this isolated series of a hundred Soma sacrifices; and I, therefore, proceed to give my view on the point.

First 45 of 83 passages. Read on

Linked texts (10)