The Religion and Philosophy of the Veda and Upanishads v2.c41.s7.26

v2.c41.s7.26

An effort to render probable pre-Dravidian influence on Vedic civilization and religion has recently been made by Professor S. Lévi,⁴ who revives the hint of Barth⁵ that the Atharvan *tābuva* may really be derived from the taboo of the Australians and Polynesians, and refers also to Mr. J. Hornell's conclusions,⁶ from the facts regarding Indian boats, of Polynesian influence, and even of a Polynesian invasion, the latter in Dravidian times, which introduced the coco-nut palm into India. Lévi's evidence is based on the existence of pairs—or triads—of ethnic names, applied to neighbouring peoples, which are differentiated by an initial preformant, a usage neither Indo-European nor Dravidian. Thus the Atharvaveda Pariçiṣṭa knows of Tosala as well as Kosala, a union found later in the Purāṇas and textbooks of rhetoric, while Açoka records Tosali, the name of which Lévi would even identify with Dhauli. Aṅga is found in the Atharvaveda, while with Vaṅga it appears from the epic onwards, usually in close association with Kaliṅga. For the latter again we have a parallel in the quite late⁷ name of the Telegu country Tiliṅga, Triliṅga, Tailiṅga, &c., whose antiquity, however, may be supported by Trilingon or Triglypton in Ptolemy's geography.⁸ Lévi compares also the Bhuliṅgas, known to Pliny and Ptolemy and the Gaṇapāṭha, who appear to have been a part of the Sālvas,⁹ though the epic ignores them. Both epics, however, have the combination Utkala with Mekala (with the variant Melaka). We have also Uḍradeça, Orissa, which goes back to an Uḍa to be recognized in Manu,¹⁰ for which Uṇḍa is a variant; comparable are the Puṇḍras, and even the Muṇḍas. The Pulindas are known from the Aitareya Brāhmaṇa onwards; the Bṛhatkathāçlokasaṁgraha¹¹ represents them in terms which suggest that they were small and black, like the pre-Dravidians,¹² and practised totemism. The epic mentions with them the Kulindas who may more properly have been Kalindas, as the name, Kālindī, of the Yamunā suggests, and another variant is Kuṇindas.¹³ The Muṇḍā languages permit the use of consonants as prefixes and the infixation of a nasal in certain cases between the prefix and the root, facts which would explain these variants, and which suggest that in the ultimate issue Utkala is Uḍra, differentiated by the infixation of a *k*, and Mekala Muṇḍa. There may be noted also the parallelism of Takkola as a place-name and the plant-name Kakkola, and of *kṣumā* (*kṣauma*) and *umā* (*aumīna*, *umya*) as the name of linen. The element *-liṅga* in some of these names suggests comparison with Laṅkā as denoting ‘island’, applied in both the Mahanadi and Godavari regions,¹ though P. Schmidt² has suggested for Kaliṅga comparison with the Nicobar word *kalāṅ*, sea-eagle, which would suggest that the ethnic names were of totemic origin. In the Indian archipelago names such as Karmaraṅga, Kāmaraṅga, Tāmraliṅga, suggest that in Kāmarūpa and Tāmralipti in its varied forms we have variants of a pre-Dravidian word. Kam again reappears probably in Kamboja, which is in its turn equated with Kapiça, both imperfect representations of an old form. Without a prefix we have Bhoja, the aspirate of which is due to contamination with the root *bhuj* of Sanskrit. The pairs of names suggest certain conclusions as to the social and political importance of a people who must have created political unities of considerable extent, so firmly connected with the real life of the country that they have persisted through thousands of years to the present day.