वेदों की प्राचीनता एवं काल-निर्णय / ओरायन (लोकमान्य बाल गंगाधर तिलक - खगोलीय वैदिक शोध)

VEDIC MYTHS—THE MATUTINAL DEITIES. 347
once as seven-mouthed and seven headed, and once as ten-mouthed
and ten-headed (Ṛig. IV, 50, 4; A. V. IV, 6, 1). This Bṛihaspati
is connected with the story of Saramâ and Paṇis, and is said to
have helped Indra in recovering the cows, or is sometimes des-
cribed as having performed the feat himself (I, 83, 4; X, 108,
6-11). Bṛihaspati is also represented in X, 109, as having lost his
wife, who was restored to him by the gods. This is obviously
the story of the restoration of the dawn to man, as represented
by the chief sacrificer Bṛihaspati. In the Taittirîya Âraṇyaka
I, 12, 3-4, Indra is described as the lover of Ahalyâ (Ahalyâyai
jâraḥ), and the myth has been explained as referring to the dawn
and the sun, by an old orthodox scholar like Kumârila. Ahalyâ
in the later literature is the wife of the Ṛiṣhi Gotama (lit. rich in
cows); but it is not difficult to perceive that the story of Ahalyâ
(which Prof. Max Muller derives from ahan, a day), was originally
a dawn-story, or a different version of the legend of Brahmajâyâ
narrated in X, 109.
These facts are very suggestive and call to mind some of
the incidents in the story of the Râmâyaṇa. It is quite out-
side the scope of this book to fully enter into the question of
the historical basis of this well-known Indian epic. We are
concerned with Vedic myths and Vedic mythology, and if we
refer to the Râmâyaṇa we do so simply to point out such re-
semblances as are too striking to be left unnoticed. The main
story in the Râmâyaṇa is narrated in such detail that, on the
face of it, it bears the stamp of a historic origin. But even
then we have to explain why Râma's adversary was conceived
as a ten-headed monster or an unnatural being, and why Râ-
ma's father was called Dasharatha or ten-carred. A ten-head-
ed monster cannot ordinarily be regarded as a historical fact,
and it seems not unlikely that some of the incidents of Vedic
myths may have been skilfully interwoven with the main
story of the epic by its author. We have seen above that

348 THE ARCTIC HOME IN THE VEDAS.
some of the Indra's enemies are described as Dashoṇi or Dasha-
mâya, and that in the Dâsharâjña fight there were ten non-sacrifi-
cing or demoniac kings opposed to Sudâs. These ten non-sacrifi-
cing kings may well be conceived as a single king with ten heads
and spoken of as a ten-headed monster, much in the same way
as Bṛihaspati, the chief of the ten Aṅgirases, is said to be ten-
headed or ten-mouthed. The fact that the brother of this
ten-headed monster slept continuously for six months in a year
also indicates his Arctic origin. Prof. Rhys, in his Hibbert
Lectures, quotes Plutarch to the effect that the Paphlagonians
regarded their gods as shut up in a prison during winter and let
loose in summer, and interprets the legend as indicating the
temporary ascendancy of the powers of darkness over those of
light during the continuous night of the Arctic region. If we
adopt this view, we can easily explain how all the gods were said
to be thrown into prison by Râvaṇa until they were released by
Râma. Another fact in the Râmâyaṇa which is supposed to
require explanation is the conception of the monkey-god Hanû-
mân. The Ṛig-Veda mentions a monkey (kapi), who, as Vṛishâ-
kapi, has been elsewhere shown to represent the sun at the
autumnal equinox, or according to the Arctic theory discussed in
this book, at the time of going down below the horizon into the
long darkness of the nether world. It is Dr. Pischel, who first
threw out the hint that this Vṛishâkapi may probably be the
ancestor of the Purâṇic Hanûmân; and the fact that Hanûmân
was born at a time when the sun we said to be eclipsed goes to
corroborate the view to a certain extent. Mr. Nârâyan Aiyangâr,
in his Essays on Indo-Aryan mythology, further points out that
Sîtâ, the wife of Râma, may be traced to the Ṛig-Vedic Sîtâ,
meaning "a ploughed furrow" which is invoked to bestow wealth
upon the worshipper in IV, 57, 6 and 7; and so far as the birth of
Sîtâ from the earth and her final disappearance into it are concer-
ned the explanation appears very probable. It seems, therefore,

VEDIC MYTHS—THE MATUTINAL DEITIES. 349
very likely that the mythical element in the Râmâyaṇa was de-
rived from the story of the restoration of the dawn or Brahma-
jâya to man as represented by the first sacrificer Bṛihaspati, or
the fight of Indra with Vṛitra for the recovery of light. Whether
we can go further than this cannot be decided without further
research. Prof. Max Muller, in his Lectures on the Science
of Language, has shown that many names in the Iliad can be
traced back to the Vedas. For instance he derives Helen from
Saramâ, Paris from Paṇis, and Briesis from Bṛisaya. But even
then all the personages mentioned in the Iliad cannot be ex-
plained in this way. One thing, however, seems certain, that the
story of the restoration of the Dawn-wife to her husband was an
ancient inheritance both with the Greeks and the Indians ; and
we need not, therefore, be surprised if we discover a few strik-
ing coincidences between the Iliad on the one hand and the Râ-
mâyaṇa on the other ; for a common mythical element appears to
have been interwoven with the main story, of course with a differ-
ent local colouring, in each case. The question whether the Râmâ-
yaṇa was copied from Homer is, therefore, entirely meaningless.
The fact seems to be that both Homer and Vâlmîki have uti-
lised a common mythological stock, and any resemblances be-
tween their work only go to prove the theory of their common
origin. It has been pointed out by Prof. Weber that in the
Buddhistic Dasharatha Jâtaka, Sîtâ is represented as the sister
and not as the wife of Râma, and the learned Professor tells us
that this must be an ancient version of the story, for a marriage
with one's sister must be considered to be as primeval as
Adam himself. The late Mr. Telang was of opinion that the
Buddhists must have deliberately misrepresented the story of
the Brahmanical epic, and such a perversion is not improbable.
But on the theory that certain features of the Vedic dawn-myths
were probably interwoven with the main historic story
of the epic, we may explain the Buddhistic account by

350 THE ARCTIC HOME IN THE VEDAS.
supposing that it was the out-come of an unsuccessful attempt
made in pre-Buddhistic time to identify Râma with Sûrya in
the Ṛig-Veda, the latter of whom is described both as the bro-
ther and the lover of the Dawn (VII, 75, 5; VI, 55, 4 and 5; X, 3
3 ). I have already stated that the subject is too vast to be treat-
ed here at any length. My object was to point out a few resem-
blances between the story of the Râmâyaṇa and the Vedic myths
as they occurred to me: But the question, howsoever interest-
ing, is not relevant to the subject in hand, and I must give up
the temptation of going into it more fully in this place. The ques-
tion of ten incarnations is also similarly connected with the
ten golden kings, or the ten gods mentioned in the Atharva
Veda, or the ten incarnations of Verethreghna in the Avesta.
The ten incarnations in the Avesta ( Yt. XIV) are, a wind,
a bull, a horse, a camel, a boar, a youth, a raven, a ram, a
buck and a man; and four of them, viz., a horse. a boar, a youth
and a man, seem to correspond with Kalki, Varâha, Vâmana
and Râma amongst the ten Avatâras mentioned in the Purâṇic
literature. This shows that the conception of the ten Avatâras
was, at any rate, Indo-Iranian in origin, and it is no doubt inte-
resting to follow it up and trace its development on the Indian
soil. The Matsya, the Kûrma, the Varâha, the Nârasimha, the
Vâmana and, as we have now seen, the Râma Avatâra can be
more or less traced to the Ṛig-Veda. But it would require much
patient research to thoroughly investigate these matters, and I
cannot do more than to throw out such hints as have occurred
to me, and ask the reader to take them for what they are
worth. If the Arctic theory is established, it will throw a good
deal of new light not only on the Vedic but also on the Purâṇic
mythology, and it will then be necessary to revise, in some cases
entirely recast, the current expalnations of both. But the work as
stated previously cannot be undertaken in a book which is

VEDIC MYTHS—THE MATUTINAL DEITIES. 351
mainly devoted to the examination of evidence in support of
the new theory.
We have now discussed most of the Vedic legends likely to
throw any light on the main point of our inquiry. There are
many other incidents, which can be better explained on the
Arctic theory than at present. For instance, we can now well
understand why Mitra and Varuṇa were originally conceived as
two correlated deities; for according to our theory they would
represent half-year-long light and darkness in the Paradise of
the Aryan race, and Varuṇa can then be very well described as
“ embracing the nights, ” ( kshapaḥ pari shasvaje, VIII, 41, 3 ).
But we cannot go into all these points in this place. What I
have said is, I think, sufficient to convince any one that there
are a number of incidents in the Vedic myths, which are inex-
plicable on the theory of a diurnal struggle between light and
darkness, or the conquest of spring over winter, or of the storm-
god over clouds. Thus we have not been able as yet to explain
why Vṛitra was killed once a year, why the waters and the light
were described as being released simultaneously by killing Vṛitra,
or why Indra's fight with Shambara was said to have com-
menced on the 40th day of Sharad, or why the fight was said
to be conducted in the parāvat regions, why Dirghatamas was
described as having grown old in the 10th yuga, why Mârtâṇḍa
was cast away as a dead son, why Trita, or the Third, was
said to have fallen into a pit, or again why Viṣhṇu's third stride
was said to be invisible. We now find that not only all these but
many more incidents in the Vedic myths are satisfactorily ac-
counted for, and the legends in their turn directly lead us to the
Arctic theory. The legends of Indra and Vṛitra, of Saptavadhri,
of Aditi and her seven flourishing and one still-born son,
of Sûrya's wheel and of Dīrghatamas, are again found to
contain express passages which indicate seven or ten months'
period of sunshine at the place, where these legends originated;

352 THE ARCTIC HOME IN THE VEDAS.
and unless we are prepared to say that all these may be
accidental coincidences, we cannot, I think, legitimately with-
hold our assent to a theory which explains so many facts, and
incidents, hitherto ignored, neglected or misunderstood, in an
easy, natural and intelligible manner. I do not mean to say that
the Arctic theory would entirely dispense with the necessity of
the Dawn, the storm or the Vernal theory. All that I contend
for is that the Arctic theory explains a number of legendary or
traditional facts hitherto hopeles ly given up as inexplicable and
that in the interpretation of Vedic myths it furnishes us with a
weapon far more powerful and effective than either the Dawn,
the Storm or the Vernal theory. In short, from a mythological
point of view alone, there is ample ground to recommend it to
our acceptance side by side with, and, in some cases, even in
substitution of the old theories. In addition to this it has been al-
ready shown in previous chapters that the new theory rests on
direct and independent statements of facts, contained in the Ṛig-
Veda, about the duration and nature of the dawn, days and
nights, seasons, months and the year in the home of the ancient
fathers of the Vedic Ṛiṣhis; and that the Avestic and Roman
traditions fully corroborate our conclusion. We have further seen
that the theory is perfectly consistent with the latest results of
geological and archæological researches. Shall we then still with-
hold our assent to the only theory which explains so many facts,
legends, and incidents, in a natural and intelligent way and
which throws such a flood of light on the ancient history of the
Aryan race, simply because it seems to be rather uncouth at
the first sight ? The rules of logic and scientific research will
not justify us in doing so, and I fully rely on them for the eventual
success or failure of the theory I have endeavoured to prove in
these pages.

CHAPTER XI.
THE AVESTIC EVIDENCE.
Nature of Avestic evidence stated—Different views of scholars
regarding its character—Necessity of re-examining the subject
—An abstract of the first Fargard of the Vendidad—Sixteen
lands created by Ahura Mazda with their modern equivalents
&c.—Airyana Vaejo, the first created land represents the
Paradise of the Iranians—Different views regarding its position
—Darmesteter, Spiegel and others locate it in the east ; Haug
and Bunsen in the far north—Darmesteter’s argument examin-
ed—Airyana Vaejo cannot be determined from the position of
Vanguhi—Identification of Rangha with the Caspian Sea or the
westernmost river doubtful—Rangha is probably the same as
Rasâ in the Rig-Veda X, 75, 6—Unsoundness of Darmesteter’s
reasoning—The position of the Airyana Vaejo must be deter-
mined from its special characteristics found in the Avesta—
The passage where ten months winter is said to be such a
characteristic cited—Ten months winter first introduced into
the happy land by Angra Mainyu—Indicates that before the
fiend’s invasion there must have been ten months summer and
two months winter in the land—Sudden change in the Polar
climate fully confirmed by latest geological researches—Two
months winter necessarily synchronous with long Arctic night
—The tradition about seven months summer and five months
winter also refers to the original climate in the Airyana Vaejo
—Mentioned in the Bundahish—Not inconsistent with the
tradition of ten months summer recorded in the original
passage—Both possible in the Arctic regions—Similar state-
ments in the Rig-Veda—Coincidence between seven months
summer, the legend of Aditi, and the date of Indra’s fight with
Shambara, pointed out—Summary of the second Fargard—
Yima’s Vara in the Airyana Vaejo—Annual sun-rise and a
year-long day therein—Shows that the Airyana Vaejo must
be located near the North Pole and not to the east of Iran—
The account too graphic to be imaginary or mythical—Re-
presents the advent of the Glacial epoch in the land—It is
the oldest human testimony to the advent of the Ice-age,
23

354 THE ARCTIC HOME IN THE VEDAS.
destroying the Arctic home—Special importance of the Aves-
tic evidence pointed out—Fully corroborated by scientific evi-
dence—Migration from Airyana Vaejo rendered necessary by
glaciation—Sixteen lands in the first Fargard therefore repre-
sent successive stages of migration to Central Asia—Establi-
shes the historical character of the first Fargard—The legend
of deluge in the Shatapatha Brâhmaṇa—Probably refers to
the same event as the Avestic legends—Other Vedic passages
indicating the northern origin of Indian Aryas—Conclusion to
be drawn from the Vedic and Avestic evidence combined.
IN dealing with the Vedic evidence, both direct and cir-
cumstantial, we have by way of comparison quoted or referred
to some Avestic legends or myths in the foregoing chapters.
But the Avesta contains some important passages directly
bearing upon the question of the original Aryan home in the
far north, and migrations therefrom to the regions watered by
the Oxus, the Jaxartes or the Indus; and it is necessary to
discuss these passages in a separate chapter, because they not
only confirm and supplement the conclusions we have previ-
ously arrived at by the examination of the Vedic evidence, but
constitute, what may be called, independent evidence pointing
out to the same result. As regards the antiquity of the Aves-
ta, it is superfluous to adduce any proofs in this place; for it
is admitted by scholars that the Vedas and the Avesta are but
two branches of the same parent stream, though the latter may
not be as well preserved as the former. To use a Vêdic
phrase, the sacred books of the Brâhmans and the Parsis are
the twin books of the Aryan race; and they can, therefore, be
safely taken to supplement each other whenever it is necessary
and possible to do so. This character of the two books is well
exhibited with regard to the subject in hand. We have seen
that while there are a number of passages in the Vedic litera-
ture, which speak of long dawns, continuous darkness, or a
sacrificial session of ten months, we have no text or legend
which directly refers to the home in the far north or to the

THE AVESTIC EVIDENCE. 355 ·
cause or causes which forced the ancient Aryans to abandon
their primeval home and migrate southwards. But fortunately
for us, the Avesta, though not generally as well preserved as
the Vedas, contains a passage which supplies the omission in
a remarkable way ; and we mean to discuss this passage at
-some length in this chapter. The Avestic legends and tradi-
tions quoted in the foregoing chapters show that a day and a
night of six months each were known to the ancestors of the
Iranians, and that the appointed time for the appearance of
Tishtrya before the worshipper, after his fight with Apaosha,
varied from one to a hundred nights, thus indicating that a
long darkness extending over a hundred nights was also
known to the forefathers of the worshippers of Mazda. The
stoppage of the flow of waters and of the movement of the sun
in winter, as described in the Farvardîn Yasht, have also been
referred to ; and it is shown that the custom of keeping a
dead body in the house for two nights, three nights or a month
long in winter, until the floods begin to flow, must be ascribed
to the absence of sunlight during the period when the floods
as well as light were shut up in the nether world by the de-
mons of darkness. All these traditions have their counter-
parts in the Vedic literature. But the Avestic tradition re-
garding the original home in the far north and its destruction
by snow and ice stands by itself, though in the light of the
Vedic evidence discussed in the previous chapters, we can now
clearly show that it has a historical basis and that it preserves
for us a distinct reminiscence, howsoever fragmentary, of
the ancient Aryan home. This tradition is contained in the
first two Fargards or chapters of the Vendidad, or the law book
of the Mazda-yasnians. They have no connection with the
subsequent chapters of the book and appear to be incorporat-
ed into it simply as a relic of old historical or traditional
literature. These two Fargards have not failed to attract
the attention of Zend scholars ever since the discovery of the

356 THE ARCTIC HOME IN THE VEDAS.
Avesta by Anquetil; and many attempts have been made not
only to identify the places mentioned therein, but to draw his-
torical conclusions therefrom. Thus Heeren, Rhode, Lassen,
Pictel, Bunsen, Haug and others have recognized in these ac-
counts of the Vendidad, a half historical, half mythical re-
miniscence of the primeval home and the countries known to the
followers of the Avesta, when these Fargards were composed.
Professor Spiegel at first took the same view as Rhode, but
has latterly retracted his opinion. On the other hand, Kiepert,
Breal, Darmesteter and others have shown that no historical
conclusion can be drawn from the description contained in the
first two chapters of the Vendidad; and this view seems to
be now mainly accepted. But it must be borne in mind that
this view was formulated at a time when the Vedic evidence in
support of the Arctic theory, set forth in the previous chap-
ters, was entirely unkown, and when the existence of an
Arctic home in ancient times was not regarded as probable
even on geological grounds, man being believed to be post-
Glacial and the Arctic regions always unsuited for human
habitation. The recent discoveries in Geology and Archæology
have, however, thrown a flood of new light on the subject;
and if the interpretation of the Vedic traditions noticed in
the previous chapters is correct, it will, I think, be readily
admitted that a reconsideration of the Avestic tradition from
the new standpoint is a necessity and that we should not
be deterred from undertaking the task by the recent verdict
of Zend scholars against the views of Bunsen and Haug re-
garding the historical character of the first two Fargards of
the Vendidad.
The first Fargard of the Vendidad is devoted to the enu-
meration of sixteen lands created by Ahura Mazda, the Su-
preme God of the Iranians. As soon as each land was created
Angara Mainyu, the evil spirit of the Avesta, created different
evils and plagues to invade the land and made it unfit for human

THE AVESTIC EVIDENCE. 357
habitation. There were thus sixteen creations of Ahura
Mazda, and sixteen counter-creations of Angra Mainyu; and
the first Fargard of the Vendidad contains a description of all
these creations, and counter-creations, stating in detail how
each good land was created by Ahura Mazda and how Angra
Mainyu rendered it unfit for human residence by creating
some evil or plague therein. The Fargard is too long to be
quoted here in full; and I, therefore, borrow Muir’s abstract
of the same prepared from the versions of Spiegel and Haug,
inserting in some places Darmesteter’s renderings with the
aid of his translation of the Vendidad in the Sacred Books
of the East Series. The paragraphs are marked first accord-
ing to Darmesteter, and then according to Spiegel by figures
within brackets.
1, 2, (1-4):—“Ahura Mazda spake to the holy Zarathus-
tra: ‘I formed into an agreeable region that which before
was nowhere habitable. Had I not done this, all living things
would have poured forth after Airyana Vaêjo.’”
3, 4, (5-9):—“I, Ahura Mazda, created as the first
best region, Airyana Vaêjo, of the good creation, (or, accord-
ing to Darmesteter, by the good river Dâitya). Then Angra
Mainyu, the destroyer, formed in opposition to it, a great ser-
pent and winter [or snow], the creation of the Daêvas. There
are there ten months of winter, and two of summer.”
5, (13, 14):—“I, Ahura Mazda, created as the second
best region, Gaû (plains), in which Sughdha is situated.
Thereupon in opposition to it, Angra Mainyu, the death-deal-
ing, created a wasp which is death to cattle and fields.”
6, (17, 18):—“I, etc., created as the third best region,
Môuru, the mighty, the holy.”
[Here, and in most of the following cases the counter-
creations of Angra Mainyu are omitted.]
7, (21, 22):—“I, etc., created as the fourth best region,
the fortunate Bâkhdhi, with the lofty banner.”

358 THE ARCTIC HOME IN THE VEDAS.
8, (25, 26):—" I, etc., created as the fifth best region,
Nisaya, [situated between Môuru and Bâkhdhi.].”
9. (29, 30):—" I, ėtc., created as the sixth best region,
Harôyu, abounding in the houses [or water].”
10, (33-36):—"I, etc., created as the seventh best region,
Vaêkereta where Dujak is situated (or, according to Darmes-
teter, of evil shadows). In opposition to it, Angra Mainyu,
the destroyer, created the Pairika Khnathaîti, who clung to
Keresâspa.”
11, (37, 38):—"I, etc., created as the eighth best region,
Urva, full of pastures.”
12, (41, 42):—" I, etc., created as the ninth best region,
Khneṇta (a river) in Vehrkâna.”
13, (45, 46):—" I, etc., created as the tenth best region,
the fortunate Harahvaiti.”
14, (49, 50):—" I, etc., created as the eleventh best region,
Haêtumaṇt, the rich and shining.”
16, (59, 60):—" I, etc., created as the twelfth best region,
Ragha, with three fortresses [or races].”
17, (63, 64):—" I, etc., created as the thirteenth best region,
Chakhra, the strong.”
18, (67, 68):—" I, etc., created as the fourteenth, best region,
Varena, with four corners; to which was born Thraêtaona,
who slew Azi Dahâka.”
19, (72, 73):—I, etc., created as the fifteenth best country,
Hapta Heṇdu [from the eastern to the western Hendu]. In
opposition, Angra Mainyu created untimely evils, and perni-
cious heat [or fever].”
20, (76, 77):—" I, etc., created as the sixteenth and best,
the people who live without a head on the floods of Rangha
(or according to Haug 'on the seashore').”
21, (81):—" There are besides, other countries, fortunate,
renowned, lofty, prosperous and splendid.”
Spiegel, Haug and other scholars have tried to identify

THE AVESTIC EVIDENCE. 359
the sixteen lands mentioned in this description, and the follow-
ing tabular statement sums up the results of the investigations
of these scholars in this direction. The letters S, H, and
D, stand far Spiegel, Haug and Darmesteter.

360 THE ARCTIC HOME IN THE VEDAS.
The old Persian and Greek names in the above table are
taken from the inscriptions of the Achæmenian kings and the
works of Greek writers after the overthrow of the Achæme-
nian dynasty by Alexander the Great. They show that at least
10 out of 16 lands can be still indentified with certainty; and if
so, we can safely say that the account in the first Fargard is
real and not mythical. But with regard to the land mention-
ed first in the list, there has been a difference of opinion
amongst Zend scholars. The Airyana Vaêjo is the first creat-
ed happy land, and the name signifies that it was the birth-
land (Vaêjo = seed, Sans. bîja) of the Aryans (Iranians), or
the Paradise of the Iranian race. Was this a mythical region
or a real country representing the original home of the Aryans,
and if it was a real country where was it situated? This is
the first question which we have to answer from the evidence
contained in the first two Fargards of the Vendidad; and se-
condly, we have to decide whether the sixteen lands mentioned
above were the successive countries occupied by the ancestors
of the Iranian race in their migrations from the original home
in the north. The Fargard says nothing about migration. It
simply mentions that so many lands were created by Ahura
Mazda and that in opposition thereto Angra Mainyu, the evil
Spirit of the Avesta, created so many different evils and
plagues which rendered the lands unfit for human residence.
It is inferred from this that the Fargard does not contain an ac-
count of successive migrations, but merely gives us a descrip-
tion of the countries known to the ancestors of the Iranians at
the time when the Fargards were composed. In other words,
the chapter is geographical and not historical, containing no-
thing but a specification of the countries known to the Ira-
nians at a particular time; and it is argued that it would be
converting geography into history to take the different coun-
tries to represent the successive stages of migrations from the
primeval home, when not a word about migration is found in

THE AVESTIC EVIDENCE. 361
the original text. Professor Darmesteter further observes
that as the enumeration of the sixteen lands begins with
Airyana Vaêjo by the river Vanguhi Dâitya and ends with
Rangha, which corresponds with the Vedic Rasâ, a mythical
river that divides the gods from the fiends, and that as the
Vanguhi and the Rangha were originally the celestial rivers
that came down from heaven (like the two heavenly Gânges)
to surround the earth, the one in the east and the other in
the west, (Bundahish, XX), the Airyana Vaêjo and the Rangha
must be taken to denote the eastern and the western bounda-
ries of the countries known to the ancient Iranians at the time
when the Fargard was composed. Spiegel also takes the same
view, and places Airyana Vaêjo "in the farthest east of the
Iranian plateau, in the region where the Oxus and Jaxartes
take their rise;" and Darmesteter seems to quote with approval
the identification of the Rangha or the sixteenth land, in
the commentary on the Vedidad, with Arvastân-i-Rûm or
Roman Mesopotamia. The whole Fargard is thus taken to be
a geographical description of the ancient Iran, and Professor
Darmesteter at the end of his introduction to the Fargard ob-
serves "It follows hence no historical conclusion can be drawn
from this description : it was necessary that it should begin
with the Vanguhi and end with the Rangha. To look to it for
an account of geographical migrations is converting cosmology
into history." Bunsen and Haug, on the other hand, maintain
that the Airyana Vaêjo represents the original home of the
Iranians in the far north, and the countries mentioned in the
Fargard must, therefore, be taken to represent the lands
through which the Aryans passed after leaving their ancient
home. The first question which we have, therefore, to decide
is whether the Airyana Vaêjo was merely the easternmost
boundary of the ancient Iran, or whether it was the primeval
abode of the Iranians in the far north. In the former case we
may take the Fargard to be merely a chapter on ancient

362 THE ARCTIC HOME IN THE VEDAS.
geography; while if it is found impossible to locate the Airyana
Vaêjo except in the far north, the countries from Samarkand
and Sughdha to Hapta Hẹndu or the Panjaub mentioned in the
Fargard would naturally represent the route taken by the
ancient Iranians in their migrations from the ancient home.
Everything thus depends upon the view that we take of the
situation of the Airyana Vaêjo; and we shall, therefore, first
see if there is anything in the Avestic description of the land
which will enable us to determine its position with certainty.
It may be observed at the outset that the river Vanguhi
is not mentioned in the Fargard along with the Airyana Vaêjo.
The original verse speaks only of the "good dâitya of Airyana
Vaêjo," but it is doubtful if "daitya" denotes a river in this
place. The Zend phrase Airyanem Vaêjô vanghuyâô dâityayô,
which Darmesteter translates as "the Airyana Vaêjo, by the
good (vanghuhi) river Dâitya," is understood by Spiegel to mean
"the Airyana Vaêjo of the good creation," while Haug takes it
as equivalent to "the Airyana Vaêjo of good capability." It is,
therefore, doubtful if the Dâitya river is mentioned along with
the Airyana Vaêjo in this passage.* But even supposing that
Darmesteter's rendering is correct, he gives us no authority
for identifying Dâitya with Vanguhi. The Bundahish (XX,
7 and 13) mentions Vêh (Vanguhi) and Dâitîk (Dâitya) as
two distinct rivers, though both seem to be located in the
Aîrân-vêj (Airyana Vaêjo). We cannot again lose sight of
the fact that it is not the Vanguhi (Vêh) alone that flows
through the Airyana Vaêjo, but that the Rangha (Arag) has
the same source and flows through the same land, viz., the
Aîryana Vaêjo. Thus in the very beginning of Chapter XX
of the Bundahish, we read that the Arag and the Vêh

1. See Dr. West's note on Bundahish XX, 13. The original pass-
   age mentions the Dâitîk river coming out from Aîrân vêj; but Dr. West
   observes that this may not be a river though the phrase (in the Avesta)
   has, no doubt, led to locating the river Dâitîk in Aîrân-vêj.

THE AVESTIC EVIDENCE. 363
are the chief of the eighteen rivers, and that they "flow
forth from the north, part from Albûrz and part from the
Albûrz of Auhar-mazd ; one towards the west, that is the
Arag ; and one towards the east, that is the Vêh river." The
Bundahish (VII, 15) further informs us that the Vêh river
flows out from the same source as the Arag river, and Dr.
West in a footnote observes that both these rivers flow out
from "the north side of the Arêdvîvsûr (Ardvi Sûra Anâhita)
fountain of the sea, which is said to be on the lofty Hûgar
(Hukairya), a portion of Albûrz." Even according to Bunda-
hish, the Vanguhi is, therefore, the eastern and the Rangha the
western river, in the northern part of Albûrz ; or, in other
words, they represent two rivers in a country, situated in the
north, one flowing towards the east, and one to the west, in
that region. It would, therefore, be, to say the least, unsafe to
infer from this that the Airyāna Vaêjo represents the eastern-
most country, because the name Vêh or Vanguhi was in later
times attached to the easternmost river in Irân. For by
parity of reasoning, we can as well place the Airyāna Vaêjo in
the far west, in as much as the name Arag or Rangha was given,
as stated by Darmesteter himself, in later times to the western-
most river.
It is again a question why Rangha should be identified
with the Caspian Sea, or some western river in Iran. The
Fargard does not say anything about the situation of Rangha.
It simply states that the fifteenth land created by Ahura
Mazda was Hapta Heṇdu and the sixteenth was on the floods
of Rangha. Now if Hapta Heṇdu, is identified with Sapta
Sindhu, or the Panjaub, why take a big and a sudden jump
from the Panjaub to the Caspian Sea, to find out the
Rangha river. Rangha is Sanskrit Rasâ, and in the Ṛig-Veda
(X, 75, 6) a terrestrial river, by name Rasâ, is mentioned
along with the Kubhâ, the Krumu and the Gomati, which are
all known to be the affluents of the Indus. Is it not, therefore,

364 THE ARCTIC HOME IN THE VEDAS.
more likely that Rangha may be the Vedic Rasâ, a tri-
butary of the Indus? If the context is any guide to the deter-
mination of the sense of ambiguous words, the mention of
Hapta Heṇdu, as the fifteenth land, shows that Rasâ the six-
teenth must be sought for somewhere near it, and the point
is pretty well settled when we find Rasâ actually mentioned
in the Ṛig-Veda along with some other tributaries of the
Indus. The identification of Rangha with the western-
most river is, therefore, at best doubtful, and the same may
be said of Vanguhi, which by-the-by is not mentioned
in the Fargard at all. But Darmesteter's reasoning does
not stop here. On the strength of this doubtful identifica-
tion he would have us believe that the ancient land of
the Airyana Vaêjo was situated in the same region where the
river named Vanguhi, or Vêh, in later times was said to flow.
But the reasoning is obviously erroneous. The names of the
two rivers Vanguhi and Rangha in the primeval home may
have been subsequently transferred to the real rivers in the
new settlement; but we cannot infer therefrom that the
country through which these new rivers flowed was the
original site of the Airyana Vaêjo. It is a well-known fact that
persons migrating from their motherland to new countries
often name the places they come across after the names of
places familiar to them in their motherland. But on that
account no one has ventured to place England in America or
Australia; and it is strange how such a mistake should have
been committed by Zend scholars in the present case. For
even if a province or country in Central Asia had been named
Airyana Vaêjo, we could not have located the original home
in that Province; just as the abode of Varuṇa cannot be
placed in the land named Varena, which is the Zend equiva-
lent of Varuṇa. The whole of Darmesteter's reasoning must,
therefore, be rejected as unsound and illogical, and but for
the preconceived notion that the original home of the Iranians

THE AVESTIC EVIDENCE. 365
cannot be placed in the far north, I think no scholar would
have cared to put forward such guesses. There are express
passages in the Avesta, which describe in unmistakable terms
the climatic characteristics of the Airyana Vaêjo, and so far
as I am aware, no valid reason has yet been assigned why we
should treat this description as mythical and have recourse to
guess-work for determining the position of the primeval home.
Thus at the beginning of the first Fargard, we are told that
the Airyana Vaêjo was the first good and happy creation of
Ahura Mazda, but Angra Mainyu converted it into a land of
ten months winter and two months summer, evidently meaning
that at the time when the Fargard was composed it was an ice-
bound land. The winter of ten months' duration, therefore, na-
turally points to a position in the far north, at a great distance
beyond the Jaxartes; and it would be unreasonable to ignore
this description which is characteristic only of the Arctic re-
gions, and, relying on doubtful guesses, hold that the Airyana
Vaêjo was the easternmost boundary of the ancient Iran. As
the passage, where the ten months' winter is described as the
present principal climatic characteristic of the Airyana Vaêjo,
is very important for our purpose, I give below the transla-
tions of the same by Darmesteter, Spiegel and Haug: —
VENDIDAD, FARGARD I.
Darmesteter. | Spiegel. | Haug and Bunsen.
3. The first of the | 5. The first and best | 3. As the first best of
good lands and coun- | of regions and places | regions and countries I,
tries, which I, Ahura | have I created, I who | who am Ahura Mazda,
Mazda, created, was the | am Ahura Mazda; | created Airyana Vaêjo
Airyana Vaêjo, by the | 6. The Airyana Vaê- | of good capability;
good river Dâitya. | jo of the good creation. | thereupon in opposition,
Thereupon came An- | 7. Then Angra Mai- | to him Angra Mainyus,
gra Mainyu, who is all | nyus, who is full of | the death-dealing, cre-
death, and he counter- | death, created an oppo- | ated a mighty serpent
created by his witch- | sition to the same; | and snow, the work of
craft the serpent in | 8. A great Serpent | the Daêvas.

366 THE ARCTIC HOME IN THE VEDAS.
Darmesteter. Spiegel. Haug and Bunsen.
the river and winter, and Winter, which the
a work of the Daêvas. Daêvas have created.
4. There are ten win- '9. Ten winter months 4. Ten months of
ter months there, two are there, two summer winter are there, two
summer months ;* and months, months of summer.
those are cold for the 10. And these are [Seven months of sum-
waters, cold for the cold as to the water, mer are there ; five
earth,cold for the trees. cold as to the earth, months of winter there
Winter falls there, with cold as to the trees. were ; * the latter are
the worst of its plagues. 11. After this to the cold as to water, cold
middle of the earth, as to earth, cold as
*N.B.—Darmesteter then to the heart of the to trees; there (is)—
states in a note that af- earth, midwinter, the heart of
ter summer months the 12. Comes the win- winter; there all around
Vendîdâd Sâdah adds, ter ; then comes the falls deep snow ; there is
“ It is known that [in most evil. the direst of plagues.]†
the ordinary course of
nature] there are seven † N. B.—According
months of summer and to Haug the whole of
five of winter.” the passage within brac-
kets is a later addition.
It will be seen from the above translations that they all
agree in the main points, viz., (1) that the Airyana Vaêjo was
the first good land created by Ahura Mazda, (2) that severe
winter and snow were first introduced into it by Angra Mainyu,
and (3) that after the invasion of Angra Mainyu there were
ten winter months and two summer months in that land.
The only difference between the three versions is that while
Darmesteter and Spiegel regard the last sentence “ And these
are cold for the waters, etc,” as a part of the original text
Haug regards it as a subsequent addition. All the translators
again agree in holding that the statement “ Seven months of
summer are there and five months of winter ” is a later inser-
tion. But we shall take up this question afterwards. For the
present we are concerned with the statement that “ Ten
months of winter are there, two months of summer,” and it
will be seen that there is no difference on this point in the