íṣṭi 'brick' in the Yajurveda
N. Ganesan
Houston, Texas
Some
thoughts regarding the etymology of íṣṭi 'brick' from Dravidian texts.
David Buyaner, Freie Universität Berlin, Germany.
Etymology of some Indo-Iranian cultural terms and the Indo-Iranian
substratum theory. I. Indo-Iranian *Hišti- / *Hišta-
‘brick’
https://indo-iranian.org/iil/article/view/23
(PDF of this Russian paper can be downloaded.)
"This hypothesis, often called “the theory of the Indo-Iranian
substratum”, was suggested by Michael Witzel in 1995 and later elaborated by
him in a series of papers. While this theory has been subsequently approved by
many prominent scholars, I argue that it is built on methodologically shaky
foundations: Witzel postulates a non-Indo-European substratum in Indo-Iranian
based on a small list of words found in both Indo-Aryan and Iranian with no
reliable Indo-European etymology available. Notably, in order to substantiate
this hypothesis, he and his followers had to enlist material which fails to
meet the original criteria. [...] I postulate the Indo-European prototype
*h2h̥1s-tó-/*h2h̥1s-ti- from *h2eh1s- ‘to dry’, which meets both the
semantic and formal criteria of etymological reliability."
"Meanwhile, it rests on methodologically shaky foundations. Thus, one of
its main adherents, A. M. Lubotsky, in the programmatic article “Indo-Iranian
Substratum,” asserts the following: “We are entitled to suspect that some words
were borrowed [from the unknown language of the BMAC bearers — D. B.], if they
belong to a specific semantic field, even in the case when they do not reveal
phonological or morphological anomalies” [Lubotsky 2001: 304]. Thus, the
presence of a small number of words common to both main branches of the
Indo-Iranian group, but lacking a reliable Indo-European etymology, allowed M.
Witzel to postulate the presence of a non-Indo-European substratum in
Indo-Iranian; however, to substantiate it, he and his followers needed to
enlist material that did not meet the original criteria." (D. Buyaner, AI
summary)
From Witzel (1999) paper
onwards, Lubotsky, and others followed with an etymological explanation of the
source word for brick in the 3rd century BCE Avestan word, ištya and iṣṭi/iṣṭikā
from Yajurveda (agnicayana ritual) from BMAC. All these start with the paper by
H. Converse (1974) about bricks in Agnicayana ritual, and a mention about the
name for the brick from Dravidian. However, the word for brick as in Sangam
texts is not mentioned in any of the research work starting from H. Converse
(1974) to D. Buyaner's (2026) paper.
(1)
Let us first look at Hungarian scholar, L. Forisz paper (2016).
Forisz 2016 — L. Forisz. Apāṃ Napāt, Dīrghatamas and Construction of the Brick
Altar: Analysis of RV 1.143. A. Parpola, P. Koskikallio (eds.). Vedic
investigations. Papers of the 12th World Sanskrit Conference. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass
Publishers, 2016. Vol. 1. P. 97–126.
pg. 120 "Etymology of the Word iṣṭi-
We have reached a point where the etymological analysis of the word is
necessary. I would like to emphasize that there is no known Ṛgvedic word that
fits in well with our previous analysis. There exists a possibly related word
in Vedic, but it occurs only in the early Yajurveda: íṣṭakā- ‘brick’. It
denotes almost exclusively the sacred bricks of the agnicayana ritual. Converse
(1974: 83–85) suggested two possible Tamil candidates as its etymology: cengal
(cennu + kal/gal) and cuṭakal/suṭakal (cuṭa/suṭa + kal). On account of
Emeneau’s critique of Converse’s proposal, Staal (1983: I, 131– 132) turned to
other possibilities and offered the Avestan ištiia- and Old Persian ištiš as a
starting point. Witzel (1995: 103) not only accepted this, but also enlarged
the horizon significantly by arguing – on the basis of the slightly different
Vedic and Iranian (Avestan and Old Persian) forms – that ‘the origin as a loan
word from some unknown pre-Aryan culture should be considered’. He also made a
proposal for this pre-Aryan language: that of the Bactria-Margiana
Archaeological Complex (BMAC) alias the ‘Oxus culture’ of Bronze Age (ca.
2500–1500 BCE)."
pg. 121 " Now we are in a position to give a preliminary translation of
verse 8:
O Agni (cf. verse 1ab), attentive with your attentive, kind and powerful
guardians (i.e. the stars), preserve us; O Iṣṭi [brick altar], with your
unimpaired, uninflamed, unwinking (guardians) [bricks], protect our children!
(1.143.8.)
We have come to the conclusion that it cannot be excluded that before the
innovation of Vedic íṣṭakā-, iṣṭikā-, an earlier form iṣṭi also found its way
to the Ṛgveda, or – more precisely – to a singular hymn of a great western
poet, who praised an equally singular form of fire, Apāṃ Napāt, the Child of
the Waters (identified with iṣṭi) as well as a widely known one, Agni, in the
same hymn. The intertwining imagery of the hymn gave Agni (and Apāṃ Napāt and iṣṭi)
such a unique cosmological significance that was unparalleled in the
contemporary sacerdotal poetry.
I hope that my analysis of ṚV 1.143 – along with the corroborating evidence of
the Apāṃ Napāt sūkta of the Gṛtsamada clan (ṚV 2.35) – will reopen an old
debate and some scholars may even reconsider the possibility of tracing the
construction of a brick altar in the Ṛgveda. As for me, I am confident that I
have found strong indirect evidence for the presence of brick in the Ṛgveda.
Remarkably enough, it turned out that the most important obstacle that confused
the evidence was the brick-altar itself. In other words, we have not seen the
bricks for the altar." (L. Forisz)
Full article can be read here,
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/242265188_Apam_Napat_Dirghatamas_and_the_Construction_of_the_Brick_Altar_Analysis_of_RV_1143
D. Buyaner says about L. Forisz conclusion:
"Several years ago, the suggestion was made that the original form iṣṭi-
in the meaning ‘brick’ already occurs in the Rigveda [Forisz 2016: 115–119,
123]. In view of the importance of this hypothesis for the question of the
origin of Old Indic iṣṭi- and its Iranian correspondences, I shall permit
myself to dwell upon it in greater detail. The author argues that the form iṣṭe
(RV I.143.8) can be explained neither as the vocative singular of iṣṭí-
‘desire’ nor as a truncated variant of iṣṭébhiḥ. The author’s own proposal — to
interpret iṣṭe as the vocative singular of iṣṭi- ‘brick’ (or ‘(brick) altar’ by
synecdoche) — is based on the assumption that RV I.143.8 exhibits internal
parallelism.
Since the term íṣṭakā- in later Old Indic texts is indeed closely connected
with the altar, this hypothesis would be attractive were it not for the
doubtful translations of the epithets in RV I.143.8 and for the parallel
passage RV VI.8.7, in which the form iṣṭe appears in the collocation
ádabdhebhir gopā́bhir.
The author concludes that in both passages iṣṭe should be understood as a
vocative referring to Agni. As regards morphology, among deverbal formations in
-ti there exist not only nomina actionis but also nomina agentis. Consequently,
iṣṭí- in RV I.143.8 and VI.8.7 should be translated not as ‘object of desire’
but rather as a nomen agentis meaning ‘one who desires, longs for’.
Accordingly, the passages are translated approximately as follows:
RV I.143.8:
“O Agni, protect us unceasingly together with thy unceasing, gracious,
benevolent protectors! With those not subject to deception, vigilant,
unsleeping — protect on every side our children, O longing one!”
RV VI.8.7:
“With thy protectors not subject to deception, O longing one, protect our
masters, O thou who dwellest in three places, and guard the host of our givers,
O Agni Vaiśvānara, and prolong their life-span while being praised!”
Thus, L. Forisz’s bold attempt to demonstrate the existence in the Rigveda of
the original form iṣṭi- ‘brick’ must unfortunately be regarded as unsuccessful.
"
AI translation tool gives this from a reading of D. Buyaner's Russian paper,
but L. Forisz paper saying in the Rgveda, the word iṣṭe hints at (fired) bricks
may not be totally wrong. Let me explain this.
Whenever I met Emeneau (UC, Berkeley), he told me that he does not know Sangam
Tamil. If Prof. MB Emeneau has studied Sangam texts, he would have told the old
name for bricks, iṭṭi in Sangam Tamil to prof. F. Staal. It is not that simple
to dismiss the Dravidian connection first mentioned by Converse (1974), even
though her taking "ceṅkal" (red stone) is not proper, but the iṭṭi, Sangam era word for brick can be used for
analysis. It is exactly like what A. Parpola theorizes the connection of the
Dravidian root, vaṭa- "aerial roots of the Banyan tree at the Pole Star
and vaṭakku "north" Ultimately, vaṭakku 'north' name for Direction in
Dravidian comes from the Harappan concept of the Banyan tree at the Pole star
and the invisible aerial roots of the Banyan (which National tree of India!)
holds stars and planets in the Universe without falling (Vedic texts).
Take iṭu- 'to place/to put' in Dravidian, īṭ (Hindi) (=brick), and iṭṭi, iṭṭikai
'brick' in Sangam texts. Compare īṭ 'brick (hindi) with īṭu, the batch of
steamed iḍlis (< iṭṭaḷi, tamil) from the plate with depressions where
rice-lentil fermented dough is poured each time. So, the veb, iṭu- gives rise
to iṭṭi, iiṭu for brick. So, like īṭu of iḍli pancake, īṭu/iṭṭi is what is
fired in the kiln. See the Hindi riddle quoted by F. Staal, Agni book. (a) iṭṭi
> iṣṭi like (b) kuṭṭa- > kuṣṭa 'leprosy', (c) viṭṭa (from verb, viṭu-)
> viṣṭa "cross-beam, rafter in roof", (d) kaṭṭai 'wooden log' >
kāṣṭha (e) muṭṭi > muṣṭi (knuckle joint in the leg) (f) koṭṭakai > goṣṭha
... Then, like vaṭ- denoting the aerial root of the Banyan fig tree as well as
Northern direction, iṭṭi > iṣṭi/iṣṭakā came to denote both 'brick' first as
well as desire as in putra kāma iṣṭi yaagam.
In CDIAL, many IA languages
retain īṭ for brick coming from Dravidian iṭu- (verb).
CDIAL 1600 íṣṭakā f. 'brick' VS., iṣṭikā- f. MBh., iṣṭā- f. BHSk. [Av. ištya-
n. Mayrhofer EWA i 94 and 557 with lit. — Pk. has disyllabic iṭṭā- and no
aspiration like most Ind. lggs.]
Pa. iṭṭhakā- f. 'burnt brick', Pk. iṭṭagā-, iṭṭā- f.; Kho. uṣṭū 'sun-dried
brick, large clod of earth' (→ Phal. iṣṭū́ m. NOPhal 27); L. iṭṭ, pl. iṭṭã f.
'brick', P. iṭṭ f., N. ĩṭ, A. iṭā, B. iṭ, ĩṭ, Or. iṭā, Bi. ī˜ṭ, ī˜ṭā, Mth. ī˜ṭā,
Bhoj. ī˜ṭⁱ, H. ī˜ṭh, īṭ, ī˜ṭ, īṭā f., G. ĩṭⁱ f., M. īṭ, vīṭ f., Ko. īṭ f. —
Deriv. Pk. iṭṭāla- n. 'piece of brick'; B. iṭāl, °al 'brick', M. iṭhāḷ f. 'a
piece of brick heated red over which buttermilk is poured to be flavoured'. —
Si. uḷu 'tile' see uṭa-.
*iṣṭakālaya-.
Addenda: íṣṭakā-: S.kcch. eṭṭ f. 'brick', Garh. ī˜ṭ; — Md. īṭ 'tile' ← Ind.
(cf. H. M. īṭ).
In Dravidian. vēḷ-, > vēṇḍu-/veṭṭal "to desire & to do
yagnam", veḷvi 'yajna', vēṭṭal "to do yajna', vēṭṭai 'hunting'.
Interestingly, iṭṭi > iṣṭi has the same meanings in Sanskrit: "to
desire/to perform Yāgam". So, L. Forisz conclusion cannot be excluded
totally.
(2)
F. Staal, Agni, Vol. I, pg. 130-
"There is a very wide gap between the simple altars of the Indo-Iranians
and of the Rgveda, and those described in the Yajurveda. The texts of the
Yajurveda describe the altar for the Agnicayana as an enormous structure piled
up from at least a thousand kiln-fired bricks. The term used to denote bricks,
iṣṭakā or iṣṭikā, occurs for the first time in the Taittiriya Samhita, and is
subsequently found in the other branches and texts of the Yajurveda. In these
texts we also find elaborate references to the firing of the ukha pot, which
itself is not mentioned in any earlier text. Taittiriya Samhita 4.1.6 provides
the mantras that accompany the rites at which the pot is moulded from clay and
smoked, after which a trench is dug, the pot is placed in it, covered with
fire, and baked for three days."
"The Harappans used millions of kiln-fired bricks as well as countless
sun-baked ones. . . .The bricks of the Harappa civilization in its mature phase
were beautifully made, well fired, and standardized in size. The basic size for
the bricks was 11 1/2 inches long, 5 3/4 inches wide, and two or three inches
thick. There were also double bricks 11 inches square, and special bricks for
well copings, drain covers, corners, etc.
[...]
The word for brick also suggests a probably non-Aryan origin. As a Sanskrit
word, iṣṭakā is related to the ritual use of bricks as an oblation, an iṣṭi,
and not to their general character as a building material. This suggests that
bricks first came into Vedic usage through this ritual function, rather than
through their usual building function. By contrast, the brick words in
Dravidian-based languages such as Tamil are descriptive of the primary use for
bricks for building. For instance, one Tamil word for brick is ceṅgal; cennu
means straightness, and kal or gal means stone or clay. Another Tamil word for
burnt (fired) brick is cuṭakal, suṭakal; again kal means clay or stone, and cuṭu,
suṭu means to burn, to bake, to burn bricks. It is possible that an early form
of sutakal was the foreign phonetic basis of what becomes Sanskritized into iṣṭakā:
an inversion (not uncommon in the incorporation of Dravidian words into
Sanskrit) of the v and the u, and the dropping of the final / to conform to
Sanskrit endings, would give uṣṭaka; the use of the bricks as iṣṭi would tend
to bring about the change from the initial u (not common in Sanskrit) to the
more common i. Whatever the source word, it was the Sanskrit meaning of the
approximate transliteration of the indigenous word that was emphasized, and
this Sanskrit word, iṣṭakā, in no way reflects the building function of bricks
but only their ritual use (Converse 1974, 83-85)."
"Converse’s linguistic arguments are less strong than her archaeological
evidence, and require some comment. A Dravidian origin for iṣṭaka is improbable
or impossible on etymological grounds (Emeneau, personal communication; Emeneau
also points out that cen-kallu means “red stone”). Moreover, iṣṭaka is not
merely Indian, but also Indo-Iranian. Mayrhofer’s Etymological Dictionary gives the Iranian
cognate ištya with the same meaning, “brick.” This term is attested only twice
(Martin Schwartz, personal communication): both occurrences are in the Videvdad
(Vendidad), 8.8 and 8.10, a late Avestan text, not earlier than the third
century b.c. In both contexts, bricks or the dust from bricks or stones
are used to cover a corpse, not for the construction of a burial mound, but to
protect the corpse temporarily, in bad weather, before it is given to the birds
and other animals. In Old Persian too išti occurs and means “brick” (allegedly
fire dried). It is found, for example, in an inscription by Darius from Susa
(fragment 29). It refers to the bricks used for the construction of Darius’
palace. The inscription informs us that Babylonians were employed as brick
makers. In modern Persian, derivatives from the same stem are also common."
"The term used for “brick” could have been taken by the Indians from the
Iranians, or by the Iranians from the Indians, or by both from an earlier
source. It is possible to derive it from an Indo-Iranian root, but this is open
to doubt. The term iṣṭi, denoting the ritual oblation of a vegetable substance
and the accompanying rites (see above pages 46-48), is derived from the root
yaj-, “sacrifice, perform a rite,” with past passive participle iṣṭa,
“sacrificed.” Satapatha Brahmana 6.2.1.10 adopts this etymology for iṣṭaka:
“Inasmuch as he saw them having sacrificed (iṣṭva) they are called bricks (iṣṭaka).”
" The term iṣṭaka survives in modern India in the meaning “(kiln-fired)
brick,” and is connected with immortality in a manner curiously reminiscent of
the Agnicayana. Here is a Hindi riddle: “It was born right in the water, but
seeing the water it dies. Brothers, let’s go and cremate it; then it will be
immortal ( jal hī meṁ paidā bhaī, jalāī dekh mar jāī| caliyo pañcoṁ phūk de, pher amar ho jāī|| ). The
solution is: Iṭ, “brick.” Dundes and Vatulc (1974, 128-130) explain this as
follows:
Brick making in India begins with taking mud out of a village pond. The mud is
placed in a hollow rectangular wooden frame. After smoothing the top, the frame
is removed and the brick-to-be is left to dry in the sun. Village homes are
typically made of such sundried brick. Unfortunately, if rain falls on such a
brick, it will dissolve. Thus, though the brick is “born in water,” it may die
upon coming into contact with water again. There is, however, a way of
preventing this catastrophe. By “cremating,” or baking the mud brick one
renders it resistant to water and thus immortal. The suggestion that cremation
ensures immortality is contrary to general eschatological theory inasmuch as
everyone who dies becomes immortal. There is thus a philosophical contradiction
in the second portion of the riddle statement. And even empirically there is a
contradiction between an object’s being cremated and thus utterly destroyed and
that object’s being made “immortal” in the sense of existing and withstanding
destructive forces. "
Sangam texts mentioning iṭṭikai
as bricks.
( (1) iṭṭikai neṭum
cuvar viṭṭam vīḻntu eṉa - akam 167/13
(2 (2) nāḷ pali maṟanta
narai kaṇ iṭṭikai
puricai mūḻkiya
pori arai ālattu - akam 287/6,7
As given earlier,
CDIAL 1600 lists iiṭ 'brick' in many North
Indian languages and especially in the regions which were part of the Harappan
civilization. iiṭu, iṭṭi are directly derivable from Dravidian verb, iṭu- and iṭṭi
> iṣṭi.
Take iṭu-
'to place/to put' in Dravidian, īṭ (Hindi) (=brick), and iṭṭi, iṭṭikai 'brick'
in Sangam texts. Compare īṭ 'brick (hindi) with īṭu, the batch of steamed iḍlis
(< iṭṭaḷi, tamil) from the plate with depressions where rice-lentil
fermented dough is poured each time. So, the veb, iṭu- gives rise to iṭṭi, iiṭu
for brick. So, like īṭu of iḍli pancake, īṭu/iṭṭi is what is fired in the kiln.
See the Hindi riddle quoted by F. Staal, Agni book. (a) iṭṭi > iṣṭi like (b)
kuṭṭa- > kuṣṭa 'leprosy', (c) viṭṭa (from verb, viṭu-) > viṣṭa
"cross-beam, rafter in roof", (d) kaṭṭai 'wooden log' > kāṣṭha (e)
muṭṭi > muṣṭi (knuckle joint in the leg) (f) koṭṭakai > goṣṭha ... Then,
like vaṭ- denoting the aerial root of the Banyan fig tree as well as Northern
direction, iṭṭi > iṣṭi/iṣṭakā came to denote both 'brick' first as well as
desire as in putra kāma iṣṭi yaagam.
BMAC people were speaking a Non-Aryan language around 2000
BCE prior to the migration of Indo-Iranian people (A. Lubotsky). David
Anthony’s map shows Indo-Iranian people moved to BMAC around 1800- 1400 BCE.
During that period, Indo-Iranians came in touch with kiln-fired bricks, and the
IVC word, iṭṭi gets modified and loses the charactersitic retroflex sound, as
attested in Avestan (3rd century BCE).
BMAC derives its technical expertise from IVC:
F. Staal, Discovering the Vedas, Penguin.
“The BMAC or‘Bactrian-Margiana Archeological Complex’
was discovered during recent decades of archaeological excavation and research
in Russia and the Central Asian Republics of the former Soviet Union. Large
fortified and walled structures from kiln-fired bricks were unearthed and
reconstructed (see Figure 6). The dates of the mature phase of that
civilization are 2100–1900 BCE. Such dates are close to what we would
expect if we were looking for influences on early Vedic. No inscriptions or
texts have been found but that is not surprising: why should the BMAC people at
that early period have arrived at a system of writing when the earlier Indus Civilization with its
kiln-fired bricks, from which the BMAC certainly derived theirs, did not
have a system of writing either?”
“We are now in a position to explain what the map further
depicts and implies. Speakers of Indo-Aryan came from the north and picked up
some BMAC words. Some of these were passed from Indo- Aryan to Iranian as A.
Lubotsky has shown. That explains the Iranian Wedge which forced Indo-Aryan to
go in two opposite directions: west to the Near East and east to India. It
explains at the same time the remarkable fact we met with before: West Asian Vedic
is more closely related to Indian Vedic than to Iranian for the simple reason
that they were one before Iranian came and pushed them away from each other in
opposite directions: the Iranian Wedge.”
Finally, the word for brick, iTTi from IVC spreading to
Persia, Iraq, Turkey and so on is comparable to
(1) the word for elephant, tusk moving to Mesopotamia from
IVC.
Ansumali Mukhopadhyay, B. Ancestral Dravidian languages in
Indus Civilization: ultraconserved Dravidian tooth-word reveals deep linguistic
ancestry and supports genetics. Humanit Soc Sci Commun 8, 193 (2021).
https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-021-00868-w
(2) Another example is PILAU, PILOW, PILÁF, &c., s.
Pers. pulāo, or pilāv, Skt. pulāka, 'a ball of boiled rice, often with meat.'
Skt. pulāka < Tamil: puḻukku (meaning simmered, boiled, or parboiled food)
and puḻukkal (meaning cooked rice). EWA III
https://archive.org/details/etymologisches-worterbuch-des-altindoarischen-bd-3/page/330/mode/2up
(3) Cattle statues and lama protective deities (human head
and spotted cow) with trefoil design made of lapis lazuli in Mesopotamia. They
seem to model the spots on the Cholistan cattle. The famous Priest-King statue
and BMAC silver cups display the "tārpya" garment. Even Bodhi tree
and leopard with the same trefoil design theme from IVC seems to have survived
until the Sasanian period Iran.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Iran_sasanide,_piatto_in_argento_niellato_con_felino_passante,_VI-VII_sec.JPG
~NG
Please send comments to naa.ganesan@gmail.com
Reference: Converse, Hyla Stuntz. "The Agnicayana Rite: Indigenous Origin?" History of Religions, vol. 14, no. 2, 1974, pp. 81–95.
.jpg)
