--- In cybalist@..., "Piotr Gasiorowski" <gpiotr@...> wrote:>
> The > term <ra:s.t.ra-> (*re:g^-tro-, cf. Latin rector `ruler,
guide') > describes a rather simple unit of tribal and territorial
organisation > that definitely does not correspond to the modern idea
of nation-> state.
I do not understand this.
How does the modern idea of a 'nation' differ from the idea of
a 'territorial organisation' of R.gveda? Isn't the latter an
insipient idea which evolves into the concept of a 'cultural
identity' within a territory, with passports, visas, border guards
and what not?
The point I want to make is that the 'nation' is not a 17th century
construct; it is an evolved entity from what you call 'tribal'
organisation. I don't see much difference, for example, from
the 'tribal' organisation of R.gveda and the 'tribal' organisation
of, say, Balkans or Central Asia of today after the collapse of USSR.