saraswati sindhu civilization by bblal

8/14/2019 Saraswati Sindhu Civilization by BBLAL

1/46

1

OS TRI CH-L IKEATTI TUDEIS PERPET UATI NG TH EARYAN I NVASI ON MYTH

ByB. B. LAL

Director General (Retd.)

Archaeological Survey of India


2/46

2

TH E BACKGROUND OFTH E MYTH In 19th Cent. Max Muller dated Vedas to

1200 BCE on an ad hoc basis

Objections by scholars

Max Muller surrenders (Physical Religion,

1890): Whether the Vedic hymns were

composed in 1000 or 1500 or 2000 or

3000 BC, no power on earth will everdetermine.

Pity, some scholars still cling to 1200 BCE

and dare not cross this Lakshamana

Rekha


3/46

3

. In 1920s Harappan Civilization was

discovered and dated to 3rd mill. BCE on

the basis of its contacts with West Asiancivilization

Since the Vedas had already been dated,be it wrongly, to 1200 BCE, theHarappan C iv ili za tio n was decla red tobe Non-Vedic . And s ince th e onlyother ma jo r language-g roup was th eDravidian, it wa s readily assumedthat the Harappans we re a Dravid ian-speaking people . In 1946 Wheeler discovered a fort atHarappa; and since the Aryan god Indra ismentioned in the Rigvedaas puramdara,i.e. destroyer of forts, he declared that

Aryan In vaders dest royed Ha rappan


4/46

4

FALLACY IN WHEELERS

ARGUMENT

In support of his Invasion theory, Wheelercited human skeletons at Mohenjo-daro(ibid.)

His interpretation is wrong; since theskeletons were found at diffe rentstratigraphic levels and could not,therefore, be related to an invasion.

No evidence whatsoever of invasion at anyof the hundreds of Harappan sites. On theother hand, there is ample evidence ofcontinuity of habitation, though marked by

gradual cultural devolution.


5/46


6/46

6

According to the Aryan Invasionthesis, the Invading Aryans droveaway the Dravidian-speakingHarappans to South India.

If there was any truth in it, one would

find settlements of Harappan refugeesin South India, but the re is noteven a sin gle Harappan or e venHarappa- rela ted setl lement i nany of the Dravi di an -speaki ng

CLA IM THAT HAR APP ANSWERE DRA VI DI AN-SPEAKERS I S W RONG


7/46

7

Contd.

Further , it is seen that even when new peopleoccupy a land, the names of at least some placesand rivers given by earlier people do continue. Forexample, in USA names of rivers like Missouri andMississippi or of places like Chicago and

Massachusetts given by earlier inhabitants docontinue even after the European occupation.

But there is no Dravi di an ri ver/ pl ace- name inthe enti re area once occupied by theHarappans, vi z. from the Indus to upperreaches of the Yamuna.

Al l tol d, ther efore, t here is no evi dencewhatsoever for hol ding that Harappanswere a Dr av idi an- speaking peopl e.


8/46

8

A BACK-DOOR ENTRY

Having failed to establish AryanInvasion, Romila Thapar (1988-91:

259-60) invokes mechanism of

migration of pastoral cattle-

breeders.

Toeing her line, R. S. Sharma (1999:

77) says: the pastoralist came from

Bactria-Margiana Archaeological

Complex which saw the genesis of

the culture of the Rigveda.


9/46

9

Contd.

But can Sharma cite even a singlesite in India, east of the Indus which

was the main scene of the activity of

the Rigvedic people where remainsof BMAC have been found ?

He cannot, since there i s none Then why indul ge i n basel essspecul ati ons ?


10/46

10

ANOTHER BACK-DOOR ENTRY

Possehl (1996:65) holds: the speakersof Vedic Sanskrit came from

elsewhere. This conclusion comes

from .. Indo-European words for trees

such as birch, Scotch pine, linden,

alder and oak. These are plants from a

temperate environment and the fact

that their names are shared amongthe early languages of the family

suggests a homeland in this

environment.


11/46

11

. The Rigvedadoes not menti on any

ofthe cold-climate trees referred to by

Possehl.

On the contrary, al l tre esmenti onedin the Ri gveda , e.g. Asvattha

(Fi cus Rel igi o sa ), Nyagrodha (Ficusbenghal ensi s ), etc. bel ong totropi cal cl imate.


12/46

12


13/46

13


14/46

14


15/46

15


16/46

16


17/46

17

WITZELS ABORTIVE

ATTEMPT In order to give a prop to the Aryan

Invasion theory, Witzel (1995: 320-21)deliberately mis-translates a part of

Baudhayana Srautasutra(18.44) asfollows: Ayu went eastwards. Hispeople are the Kuru-Panchala and Kasi-Videha. This is the Ayava (migration).(His other people) stayed a t home inthe we st. His people are the Gandhari,Parsu and Aratta. This is the Amavasugroup.


18/46

18


19/46

19

The correct translation would,therefore, be: Ayu migratedeastwards. His people are the Kuru-Panchalas and Kasi-Videhas.Amavasu mig ra ted westwards(and not s tayed back, as Witze lsays) . His people are Gandhari,Parsu and Aratta.

In other words, the part ing tookplace from an in termediaryregion, between Ga ndhara onthe we st and Kurukshetra onthe east. There is no questio n o fany k ind of mig ratio n eastwardsin to India from the we st.


20/46

20


21/46

21


22/46

22

WERE THEN HAR APPANSTHE MSELVES VEDI CARYANS?If there was no Aryan Invasion norwere the Harappans Dravidian-speaking

people, could they themselves havebeen the Vedic Aryans ?

Against such an equation fourobjections have been raised, namely:

- (i) Whereas the Vedic people werenomads, the Harappans were urbanites;

- (ii) The Vedic people knew the horse,while the Harappans did not;


23/46

23

- (iii) Whereas the Vedic people usedspoked wheels, the Harappans did not;

- (iv) Finally, since according to MaxMuller the Vedas were only as old as1200 BCE and Harappan Civilizationwas of the 3rd mill. BCE, how can thetwo be equated, chronologically?

All these objections a re baseless.Briefly: Nomads ? Vedic people lived settled

life and constructed forts. In RV10.101.8 the prayer is: Oh gods,make s trong fo rts a s o f me tal. RV4.30.20 mentions hundredfo rt resses o f stone.


24/46

24

Contd. Trade was carried on even on seas .

RV 9.33.6: O So ma, pour th ou fo rthfour se as fill ed wit h a thousand-fo ldriches. The ships had sometimes asmany as a hundred oars (satar i t ra ) .

Vedic people had s a b h as and s ami t isand even a hierarchy of rulers: S a m r a t ,R a jan and R a jakas(RV6.27.8 & 8.21.8).That these gradations were real isconfirmed by Satapatha Brahmana

(V.1.1.12-13): By offering Rajasuyahebecomes Raja and by Vajapeya, Samrat;the o ffic e of Raja is lo wer and ofSamrat, higher. Can we still call the Rigvedic people

Nomads ?


25/46


26/46

26


27/46

27

Contd.

Reporting on the faunal remainsfrom Sur kotada , the renownedinternational authority on horse-

bones, Sandor Bokonyi of

Hungary, emphasized: Theoccurrence of true horse(Equus Cabal lu s L. ) wasevi denced by the enamelpatter n of the up per andlower cheek an d teeth and b ythe si ze and for m of the


28/46

28


29/46

29

Contd.

Spoked wheel . Though the hotand humid climate of India does

not let wooden specimens

survive, there are enoughterrac otta model s of spokedwheel s, e. g. from Kal ibangan ,Rakhi garhi , Banawal i, etc.


30/46

30


31/46

31

Chro no logi cal Hori zonof the Vedas It is most crucial to ascertain the exact

chronological horizon of the Vedas,since the 1200-BCE fatwa of Max Mulleris at the root of the Aryan Invasion

theory The mention of a shift of vernal equinox

from Mrigasiras to Rohini in the AitareyaBrahmanahas led many astronomers to

assign this text to ca. 3500 BCE andthus the Vedas to 4th mill. BCE. I amincompetent to offer any comments, butwould suggest that an internationalseminar be held on this topic to thrash it

out


32/46

32

Contd.

However, of immense help is thecombined evidence ofarchaeology, geology, hydrology

and radiocarbon-dating

In this context, the role of RigvedicSarasvati is vital. According to RV10.75.5, it lay between Yamuna andSutlej; and flowed from mountains

to the sea (RV 7.95.2). It isidentifiable with the Ghaggar-Sarasvati combine which is nowdry downstream from Sirsa.


33/46

33


34/46

34


35/46

35


36/46

36

On Sarasvatis bank stands Kalibangan, an

important site of Harappan Civilization.

Hydrological investigations reveal that the

site had to be abandoned because of thedrying up of the Sarasvati an event thattook place because of rise of Bata-Markanda Terrace in the Himalayas (Puriand Verma 1998).

It is interesting to note that thePanchavimsa Brahmana(XXV.10.16) toorefers to the drying up of the Sarasvati.

Radiocarbon dates show that Kalibangan

was abandoned around 2000 BCE. Since the Sarasvati was a mighty flowing

river during the Rigvedic times and it driedup around 2000 BCE, the R igv eda has tobe dated to a perio d prior to 2000BCE.


37/46

37


38/46

38

Contd. Since the Rigvedamust be dated prior to

2000 BCE and, according to RV10.75.5-6,the Rigvedic people occupied the areafrom the Ganga in the east to the Indus onthe west, a question may straightaway beasked: Archaeologically, which civilizationflourished in this very area prior to 2000BCE? The in escapable answer wil lhave to be: the Ha rappan.

Hence a Vedic=Harappan equation. Thiswould be further reinforced by asatisfactory decipherment of the Harappanscript, which, however, still awaited.


39/46

39


40/46

40

Contd.

Now, even if Vedic people and Harappans werethe same, were they indi genous ? The answeris Yes.

There is ampl e ar chaeol ogical evi dence todemonstr ate t hat the Har appanCi vi lizati on, whi ch at tai ned maturi ty in 3 rdmi ll. BCE , had its roots in 6 th mi ll . BCE.Some of the Carbon- 14 dat es from recentexcavati ons at B hi rrana in t he Sarasv at ivall ey in m odern Haryana are:

4536, 5041 & 6439 BCE. In other words,the Harappans w ere the sons of t he soi l. Hence Vedi c peopl e too were indi genous .


41/46

41

THE EVIDENCE OF

GENETICS A great deal of genetic research is

being carried out which throws lighton this issue and I quote here

Sanghamitra Sahoo et al. (2006: 843-48): The sharing of some Y-chromosomal haplogroups betweenIndian and Central Asian populations

is most parsimoniously explained bya deep, common ancestry betweenthe two regions, with diffusion ofsome In dian-specific l ineagesnorthward. .


42/46


43/46

43

OSTRI CH-L IKEATT IT UDE Seeing thou seeth not; knowing

thou ignoreth. How long wouldst

thou continue with this ostrich-like attitude ?

Shouldnt thou re-think and give

the Aryan Invasion theory aceremonial burial ?


44/46


45/46

45


46/46

46

REFERENCES

Hemphill, B. E., J. R. Lukacs and K. A. R. Kennedy. 1991. Biological

Adaptations and Affinities of Bronze Age Harappans. In R. H. Meadow (ed.),Harappa Excavations 1986-1990, pp.137-82. Madison. Wisconsin:Prehistory Press.

Muller, F. Max. 1890, reprint 1979. Physical Religion. New Delhi: AsianEducational Services.

Possehl, Gregory L. 1996. Indus Age: The Writing System. New Delhi:Oxford & IBH Publishing Co. Pvt. Ltd.

Puri, V. M. K. and B. C. Verma. 1998. Glaciological and Geological Source of

Vedic Sarasvati in the Himalayas, Itihas Darpan, Vol. IV, No. 2: 7-36. Sahoo, Sanghamitra, et al. 2006. A prehistory of Indian Y chromosomes:

Evaluating demic diffusion scenarios. PNAS, Jan. 24, vol.103,no.4,843-848.

Sharma, R. S. 1999. Advent of the Aryans in India. New Delhi: ManoharPublishers.

Thapar, Romila. 1988-91. In Journal Asiatic Society of Bombay, vol. 64-66,pp. 259-60.

Wheeler, R. E. M. 1947. Harappa 1946: The Defences and Cemetery R 37.Ancient India, 3;58-130.

Witzel, Michael. 1995. Rigvedic History: poets, chieftains and polities. InGeorge Erdosy (ed.). The Indo-Aryans of Ancient South Asia, pp. 307-52.Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.

saraswati sindhu civilization by bblal

Documents