From
and
B. B.
Lal
is a renowned archeologist and former Director General of the
Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) who has written many books and papers on
the Aryan issue including his 2015 book- ‘The Rigvedic People: Invaders?/
Immigrants? Or Indigenous?"
Here is an interview with him by Mr Nithin Sridhar for
Newsgram.com.
Nithin Sridhar: How deep are the roots of the
most ancient civilization of the Indian subcontinent, known as the Harappan
Civilization, and through what stages did it develop?
B. B.
Lal: The
Harappan Civilization (also called the Indus Civilization or Indus-Sarasvati
Civilization), which reached its peak in the 3rd millennium BCE, grew up on the
Indian soil itself. While there are likely to have
been earlier stages, the earliest one so far identified
is at Bhirrana, a site in the upper reaches of the Sarasvati valley, in Haryana. This
is the stage when the people dwelt in pits and used incised and appliqué
pottery called the Hakra Ware. According to Carbon-14 dates, it is ascribable
to the 6th -5th millennium
BCE. I call it Stage I.
In Stage II, identified at a nearby site
called Kunal, the people gave up pit-dwellings
and built houses on the land-surface, used copper and silver artifacts and a
special kind of pottery which was red in color and painted with designs in
black outline, the inner space being filled with white color. This
Stage may be assigned to the 4th
millennium BCE.
In Stage III, beginning around
3,000 BCE, a new
feature came up, namely the construction of a peripheral (fortification?) wall
around the settlement, which has been noted at Kalibangan,
located on the left bank of the Sarasvati in Hanumangarh District of Rajasthan. Another
important feature that can be noted here is an agricultural field, marked by a
criss-cross pattern of furrows. It may incidentally be mentioned that this the
earliest agricultural field ever discovered anywhere in the world in an
excavation. An earthquake, occurring around 2,700 BCE, brought about the end of
Stage III at Kalibangan. This is the earliest evidence of earthquake ever
recorded in an archeological excavation.
However, after about a century or so the people
returned to Kalibangan, but with a bang. This is Stage IV. They now
had two parts of the settlement, a ‘Citadel’ on the west and a ‘Lower Town’ on
the east. Both were fortified. In the Lower Town there lived agriculturalists
and merchants, while the Citadel was the seat of priests and elites. In the
southern part of the Citadel, there were many high, mud-brick platforms on
which there stood specialized structures, including fire-altars and sacrificial
pits. There is ample evidence of writing,
seals, weights, measures, objects of art in this Stage, assignable to circa
2600 to 2000 BCE. The peak had been reached.
Citadel, Middle Town, and Lower Town were also
features of other sites of Indus-Sarasvati civilization.
For various reasons, including sharp
climatic changes, the drying up of the Sarasvati, and steep fall in trade, the
big cities disappeared and there was a reversal to the rural
scenario. Some people migrated from the Sarasvati valley into the upper
Ganga-Yamuna terrain, as indicated by sites like Hulas and Alamgirpur. The
curtain was drawn on a mighty Indian civilization.
Photo: www.boloji.com
NS: Many people hold that there was an ‘Aryan Invasion’ which
destroyed the Harappan Civilization. How far is this true?
Lal: Let us
first go to the background against which the ‘Aryan
Invasion’ theory emerged. In the 19th century, Max Muller, a German Indologist, dated the Vedas to 1200
BCE. Accepting that the Sutras existed around 600 BCE
and assigning 200 years to each of the preceding stages, namely those of the Aranyakas,
Brahmanas, and Vedas, he arrived at the magic figure
of 1,200 BCE.
There were serious objections to such ad-hocism by
contemporary scholars, like Goldstucker, Whitney, and Wilson. Thus cornered,
Max Muller finally surrendered by stating: “Whether the Vedic hymns were
composed in 1000 or 1500 or 2000 or 3000 BC, no power on earth will ever
determine.” But the great pity is that some scholars even today cling to 1200
BCE and dare not cross this Lakshamana Rekha!
In the 1920s, the Harappan Civilization
was discovered and dated to 3rd millennium BCE on
the basis of its contacts with West Asian civilizations.
Since the Vedas had already been dated, be it wrongly, to 1200 BCE, the
Harappan Civilization was declared to be Non-Vedic. And since the only
other major language group in India was the Dravidian, it was readily assumed
that the Harappans was a Dravidian-speaking people.
In 1946, Wheeler discovered a fort at Harappa; and
since the Aryan god Indra has been mentioned in the Rigveda as puramdara, i.e.
‘destroyer of forts’, he lost no time in declaring that Aryan Invaders destroyed
the Harappan Civilization.
In the excavations at Mohenjo-Daro, some human
skeletons had been found. In support of his ‘Invasion’ theory, Wheeler stated that these were the people who had been
massacred by the invaders. However, since the skeletons had been found
at different stratigraphic levels and could not,
therefore, be related to a single event, much less to an invasion, Wheeler’s
theory was prima facie wrong. Dales, an American archeologist, has rightly
dubbed it as a ‘mythical massacre’.
Indeed, there is no evidence whatsoever of
an invasion at any of the hundreds of Harappan sites. On the other
hand, there is ample evidence of continuity of habitation, though marked by
gradual cultural devolution.
A detailed study of human skeletal remains from various
sites by Hemphill and his colleagues has established that no new people at all entered
India between 4500 and 800 BCE.
Thus, if there is no evidence of warfare
or of entry of an alien people where is the case for any ‘invasion’, much less
by Aryans?
NS: In the last few decades, many scholars have taken recourse to
the theory of ‘Aryan Migration’ from Central Asia. How far does this new theory
stand scrutiny?
B.B. Lal: The
ghost of ‘Invasion’ has re-appeared in a new avatāra (incarnation),
namely that of ‘Immigration’. Romila Thapar says: “If
the invasion is discarded, then the mechanism of migration and occasional
contacts come into sharper focus. These migrations appear to have been of pastoral
cattle breeders who are prominent in the Avesta and Rigveda.” Faithfully
following her, R. S.
Sharma adds: “The pastoralists who moved to the Indian borderland came from Bactria-Margiana
Archaeological Complex or BMAC which saw the genesis of the culture of
the Rigveda.”
Contrary to what has been stated by Thapar and
Sharma, the BMAC
is not a pastoral culture, but a highly developed urban one. The
settlements are marked not only by well-planned houses but also by distinctive
public buildings like temples, e.g. those at Dashly-3 and Toglok-21 sites. Then
there were Citadel complexes like that at Gonur. The antiquities found at BMAC
sites also speak volumes about the high caliber of this civilization. In the
face of such a rich heritage of the BMAC, would you like to deduce that the
BMAC people were nomads – whom Thapar and Sharma would like to
push into India as progenitors of the Rigvedic people? I am sure, you wouldn’t.
But much more important is the fact that no BMAC
element, whether seals or bronze axes or sculptures or pot-forms or even the
style of architecture ever reached east of the Indus, which was the area
occupied by the Vedic Aryans as evidenced by the famous Nadi-stutihymn
(RV 10.75.5-6). Hence, there is no question of the BMAC people
having at all entered the Vedic region.
Thus, the theory of ‘Aryan Migration’
too is a myth.
Photo: www.boloji.com
NS: Some people hold that the Rigvedic flora and fauna pertain to a
cold climate and hence the Rigvedic people must have come from a cold region.
What do you think of this view?
B.B. Lal: If
the attempt at bringing the Vedic Aryans into India from the BMAC has failed,
why not try other means? In this category falls the attempt by certain scholars
who hold that that Vedic flora pertains to a cold climate and, therefore, the
Ṛigvedic people must have come from a cold region and cannot be indigenous. In
this context, they refer to species such as birch, Scotch pine, linden, alder,
and oak. But, let us examine Rigveda.
In the Rigveda the following trees are mentioned: Aśvattha (Ficus religiosa L.); Kiṁśuka(Butea
monosperma [Lamk.]; Khadira (Acacia catechu Wild.); Nyagrodha (Ficus benghalensis L); Vibhīdaka/Vibhītaka (Terminalia
Billerica Roxb.); Śālmali (Bombax
Ceiba L. Syn. Salmalia malabarica [DC.] Schott); Śiṁsipā (Dalbergia sisso Roxb,).
The main regions of the occurrence the
foregoing trees are – India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Sri Lanka, and Myanmar.
In fact, what is true in the case of the flora is
equally true in the case of the fauna as well. Some of the animals mentioned in
the Ṛigveda include Vṛiṣabha (Bos
Indicus); Siṁha (Lion,Panthera
leo L.); Hastin/Vaaaraṇa (Elephas maximus L.
and Loxodonta africana), which all typically occur in a tropical climate.
Moreover, even the birds testify to the fact that Ṛigveda have
been composed in a tropical climate. In this context, two typical birds may be
cited: Mayūra (Pavo
cristatus L.) and Chakravāka (Anus
Casarca).
From what has been stated in the
preceding paragraphs, it must have become abundantly clear that the flora, as
well as fauna mentioned in the Ṛigveda, are typically tropical. Further, no
cold-climate flora and fauna find a place in this text. Thus, there is no case
to hold that the authors of the Ṛigveda belonged to a cold
climate.
NS: If the Aryans were neither ‘Invaders’ nor ‘Immigrants’, were
they ‘Indigenous’?
B.B.
Lal: To answer this
question, we must first settle the date of the Rigveda since
the entire mess has been created by wrongly dating the Vedas to 1200 BCE.
In this context, the history of the River Sarasvati
plays a very vital role. In the Rigveda, it has been referred
to as a mighty river, originating in the Himalayas and flowing all the way down
to the ocean (RV 7.95.2). But by the time of the Panchavimsha
Brahmana(XXV.10.16) it had dried up.
Against this literary background, let us see what
archaeology and other sciences have to say in the matter.
Along the bank of the Sarasvati (now called the
Ghaggar) is located Kalibangan, a site of the Harappan Civilization. It had to
be abandoned while it was still in a mature stage, owing to the drying up of
the adjacent river. According to the radiocarbon dates, this abandonment took
place around 2000.
Since, as already stated, during the Rigvedic times
the Sarasvati was a mighty flowing river and it dried up around 2,000 BCE, the Rigveda has
got to be earlier than 2000 BCE.How much earlier is anybody’s guess;
but at least a 3rd millennium BCE horizon is indicated.
Further, Rigveda X.75.5-6 very clearly defines the
area occupied by Rigvedic people, in the 3rd millennium BCE, as
follows:
imam me Gaṅge Yamune Sarasvati Śutudri
stotam sachatā Parus̩n̩yā / Asiknyā Marudvr̩idhe
Vitastayā Ārjīkīye śr̩in̩uhya- Sus̩omayā // 5 //
Tr̩is̩tāmayā prathamam yātave
sajūh̩.Susartvā Rasayā Śvetyā tyā / Tvam Sindho
Kubhayā Gomatīm Krumum Mehatnvā saratham yābhir̄iyase // 6 //
Which means the area occupied by Rigvedic
people was from the upper reaches of the Ganga-Yamuna on the east to the Indus
and its western tributaries on the west.
Map showing a correlation between Rigvedic area and
Harappan Civilization during 3rd millennium BC. Red lines- Rigvedic area. Black
Dotted lines- Harappan Civilization. Photo Source: The Rigvedic People by B.
B. Lal
Now, if a simple question is asked, viz.
archaeologically, which culture occupied this very area during the Rigvedic
times, i.e. in the 3rd millennium BCE, the inescapable
answer shall have to be: ‘The Harappan Civilization’.
Thus, it is amply clear that the
Harappan Civilization and the Vedas are but two faces of the same coin.
Further, as already stated earlier, the Harappans were the sons of Indian soil.
Hence, the Vedic people who themselves were the Harappans were indigenous.
NS: But, materially, many objections has been raised against the
Vedic = Harappan equation. How do you reconcile them?
B.B.Lal: Yes,
I am aware that against such a chronological-cum-spatial Vedic = Harappan
equation, many objections have been raised. Notably, three important objections
have been raised, namely:
(1) Whereas the Vedic people were nomads, the
Harappans were urbanites; (2) The Vedic people knew the horse while the
Harappans did not; and (3) The Vedic people used spoked wheels, but the
Harappans had no knowledge of such wheels.
Let us take up the first question. The Vedic people were not nomads wandering from place to
place, but had regular settlements, some of which were even fortified.
In RV 10.101.8 the prayer is: “stitch ye [oh gods] the coats
of armour, wide and many; make metal fortssecure from all
assailants.” RV 7.15.14 runs as follows: “And, irresistible,
be thou a mighty metal fort to us, with hundred walls for man’s defense.”
Even on the economic front, the Vedic people were highly advanced. Trade was carried
on even on the seas. Says RV 9.33.6: “O Soma, pour thou forth four seas
filled with a thousand-fold riches.” The ships had sometimes as many as ‘a
hundred oars(sataritra)’.
Politically,
the Vedic people had sabhas and samitis
and even a hierarchy of rulers: Samrat, Rajan and Rajakas
(RV 6.27.8 & 8.21.8). That these gradations were real and not
imaginary is confirmed by the Satapatha Brahmana (V.1.1.12-13):
“By offering Rajasuya he becomes Raja and by Vajapeya, Samrat; the
office of Raja is lower and of Samrat, higher.”
In the face of the foregoing evidence,
can we still call the Rigvedic people ‘Nomads’?
Now coming to the horse,
in his Mohenjo-daro Report, Mackay states: “Perhaps the most interesting of the
model animals is the one that I personally take to represent a horse.”Wheeler
confirmed the above view of Mackay, adding that “a jawbone of a horse is also
recorded from the same site.”
Now a lot of new material has come to light: from Lothal, Surkotada, Kalibangan, etc. Lothalhas
yielded a terracotta figure as well as the faunal remains of the horse.
Reporting on the faunal remains from Surkotada,
the renowned international authority on horse-bones, Sandor Bokonyi of Hungary,
emphasized: “The occurrence of true horse (Equus Caballus L.)
was evidenced by the enamel pattern of the upper and lower cheek and teeth and
by the size and form of the incisors and phalanges (toe bones).”
Terracotta wheel, Mature Harappan. Photo Credit:
http://www.ifih.org
Now lastly, the spoked wheel. Though
the hot and humid climate of India does not let wooden specimens survive, there
are enough terracotta models of spoked wheels, e.g. from Kalibangan,
Rakhigarhi, Banawali, etc.
Thus, all the objections against the
Vedic=Harappan equation are baseless. The two are respectively the literary and
material facets of the same civilization.
NS: Some proponents of the ‘Aryan Invasion’ or ‘Aryan Migration’
theory hold that the Harappans was a Dravidian-speaking people. What do you
think of that?
B.B. Lal: According
to the ‘Aryan Invasion’ thesis, the Invading Aryans drove away the supposed
Dravidian-speaking Harappans to South India.
If there was any truth in it, one would find settlements of
Harappan refugees in South India, but there is not even a single Harappan or
even Harappa-related settlement in any of the Dravidian-speaking States, be it
Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka or Kerala!
Further, it is seen that even when new people occupy
a land, the names of at least some places and rivers given by earlier people do
continue. For example, in USA names of rivers like Missouri and Mississippi or
of places like Chicago and Massachusetts, given by earlier inhabitants, do
continue even after the European occupation. But there is no Dravidian river/place-name in the
entire area once occupied by the Harappans, viz. from the Indus to upper
reaches of the Yamuna.
All told, therefore, there is no
evidence whatsoever for holding that the Harappans was a Dravidian-speaking
people.
NS: Some scholars have stated that Vedic Aryans migrated from India
towards the West. Did some Vedic people really emigrate to the West?
B.B.Lal: The
answer is in the affirmative and the evidence is as follows:
Inscribed clay tablets discovered at Bogazkoy in Turkey record a
treaty between a Mitanni king named Matiwaza and a Hittite king, Suppilulima.
It is dated to 1380 BCE. In it the two kings invoke, as witnesses, the Vedic gods Indra, Mitra, Nasatya and Varuna.
Commenting on this treaty, the renowned Indologist
T. Burrow observes: “Aryans appear in Mitanni as the ruling dynasty, which
means that they must have entered the country as conquerors.”
‘Conquerors from
where?’ may not one ask? At that point of time (1380 BCE) there was no
other country in the world except India where these gods were
worshipped. Thus, the Aryans must have gone from India.
This emigration from India is duly confirmed by what
is recorded in the Baudhayana Srautasutra.
“Pranayuh pravavraja.Tasyaite Kuru-Panchalah
Kasi-Videha ityetad Ayavam pravrajam Pratyan Amavasus * Tasyaite Gandharayas
Parsvo Aratta ityetad Amavasavam.”
The verb used in the first part is pravavraja. Thus,
as per rules of grammar, the unstated verb in the second part * should
also be ‘pravavraja’. The correct translation of the
second part would, therefore, be: “Amavasu migrated westwards. His
(people) are the Gandhari, Parsu and Aratta.”
Thus, the Baudhayana
Srautasutra does in fact narrate the story of a section of the
Vedic Aryans, namely the descendants of Amavasu, having migrated westwards, via
Kandahar (Gandhara of the text) in Afghanistan to Persia (Parsu)
and Ararat (Aratta) in Armenia. From there they went to
Turkey, where the Bogazkoy tablets of the 14th century BCE, as
already stated, refer to the Vedic gods Indra, Mitra, Varuna and Nasatyas.
Migration of
Vedic People Westwards as mentioned in te Baudhayana Srautasutra. Photo Credits:
The Rigvedic People by B. B. Lal
Indeed, there is enough archaeological,
epigraphic, and literary evidence from Iran, Iraq and Turkey, which duly
establishes this westward migration of the Vedic people in the 2nd -3rd millennium
BCE.
NS: There is a clear linguistic relationship between various
languages in the Indo-European family. How is this explained if there was no
invasion/migration of the Aryans into India?
B.B.Lal: No
doubt similarity of language between any two areas does
envisage a movement of some people from one to the other. But why must
it be presumed that in the case under consideration, it must necessarily be
from west to east? A movement of people from east to
west would also lead to the same result? Isn’t it?
There is plenty of archaeological evidence that the
Harappans, who were none other than the Vedic people (as I mentioned before),
spread outside India into Afghanistan, Central Asia, Iran, and Iraq. In Afghanistan,
there was a full-fledged settlement of the Harappans, at Shortughai. In Central Asia, sites like Namazga Tepe have yielded a great deal of Harappan
material. At the southern end of the Persian Gulf, there was a colony of the
Harappans in Oman. In Bahrain
a seal bearing Harappan script and the Indian national bird, the peacock, stand
as indisputable testimony to the presence of the Harappans in that island. In
fact, king Sargon of Akkad hailed Harappan boats
berthed in the quay of his capital. All these movements of the Harappans are
assignable the 3rd millennium BCE.
In answer to the previous question, I had mentioned
that there was an unquestionable presence of the Vedic people in the region now
known as Turkey, in the second millennium BCE. From Turkey to Greece it is a
stone-throw distance and from there Italy is just next door.
The entire foregoing evidence would squarely explain
the similarity between Sanskrit, Greek, and Latin. For this, one need not
conjure up an ‘Aryan Invasion’ of India!
NS: It has been held by some scholars that the Harappan Civilization
became extinct, leaving no vestiges behind. How far is this true?
B.B.Lal: Because
of various reasons, such as break up in external trade, drastic climatic
changes, the drying up of the Sarasvati and so on, the Harappan urbanization
had a major setback: cities gradually vanished, but villages continued. There
was no extinction of the people who carried on their day-to-day life, though in
a humble way than before. Thus, we find many of
the Harappan traits in vogue even today.
For example, the application by married Hindu women
of vermilion (sindūra) in the partition line of the hair on the
head, the wearing of multiple bangles on the arms and of pāyalaaround
the ankles; practice of yogic exercises; worshipping Lord Shiva, even in the
form ofliṅga-cum-yoni; performing rituals using fire-altars,
using sacred symbols like the svastika; and so on. Indeed, be not
surprised if I told you that the way you greet each other withnamaste goes
back to the Harappan times. Above all, even some of the folk tales, like those
of ‘A Thirsty Crow’ or ‘The Cunning Fox’, which grandmothers narrate to the
children while putting them to sleep originated in the Harappan times. Tradition
dies hard!
Related articles:-
3 comments:
Excellent interview!
Thanks for an interview done with great deal of clarity & precision.
I have read a lot on ancient indian history but this interview gives clarity to all doubts
Post a Comment