Indo-Aryan migration: Encyclopedia - Indo-Aryan migration

Indo-Aryan migration

Indo-Aryan migration refers to the migration and expansion of the Indo-Aryans during the 2nd millennium BC or earlier. Archaeological and philological data indicates that there was a shift of settlements from the northwestern part of South Asia to the Gangetic valley and to the south during the second millennium BCE, but does not clearly support a migration of Indo-Aryan people into South Asia. Based on linguistic data, many scholars have argued that Indo-Aryan speakers invaded in South Asia in the second millennium BCE. This corresponds to the first wave of expansion of the Indo-Iranians beyond Central Asia, notably into the South Asia.

Indo-Aryan migration - Overview

The separation of Indo-Aryans proper from Proto-Indo-Iranians has been dated to roughly 2000 BC–1800 BC. The Nuristani languages probably split in such early times, and are either classified as remote Indo-Aryan dialects, or as an independent branch of Indo-Iranian. It is believed Indo-Aryans reached Assyria in the west and the Punjab in the east before 1500 BC: the Indo-Aryan Mitanni rulers appear from 1500, and the Gandhara grave culture emerges from 1600. This suggests that Indo-Aryan tribes would have had to be present in the area of the BMAC (southern Turkmenistan / northern Afghanistan) from 1700 BC at the latest (incidentally corresponding with the decline of that culture).

The spread of Indo-Aryan languages has been connected with the spread of the chariot in the first half of the second millennium BC. Some scholars trace the Indo-Iranians (both Indo-Aryans and Iranians) back to the Andronovo-Sintashta-Petrovka culture (ca. 2200 BC–1600 BC). Other scholars like Brentjes (1981), Klejn (1974), Francfort (1989), Lyonnet (1993), Hiebert (1998), Bosch-Gimpera (1973) and Sarianidi (1993) have argued that the Andronovo culture cannot be associated with the Indo-Aryans of South Asia or with the Mitannis because the Andronovo culture took shape too late and because no actual traces of their culture (e.g. warrior burials or timber-frame materials of the Andronovo culture) have been found in South Asia or Mesopotamia (see Edwin Bryant 2001). The archaeologist J. P. Mallory (1998) found it "extraordinarily difficult to make a case for expansions from this northern region to northern South Asia" and remarked that the proposed migration routes "only gets the Indo-Iranian to Central Asia, but not as far as the seats of the Medes, Persians or Indo-Aryans" (Mallory 1998; Edwin Bryant 2001: 216). The best evidence, however, is linguistic, 'not' archaeological (see e.g. Hans Hock in Bronkhorst & Deshpande 1999)

Other scholars see some relationship between the BMAC and the Indo-Aryans. But although horses were known to the Indo-Aryans, evidence for the presence of horse in form of horse bones is missing in the BMAC (e.g. Bryant 2001).

Asko Parpola (1988) has argued that the Dasas were the "carriers of the Bronze Age culture of Greater Iran" living in the BMAC and that the forts with circular walls destroyed by the Vedic Aryans of the Rigveda were actually located in the BMAC. Parpola's hypothesis has been criticized by K.D. Sethna (1992) and others. Moreover, cultural links between the BMAC and the Indus Valley can also be explained by reciprocal cultural influences uniting the two cultures.

The Indo-Aryan migration is often compared and associated with the Indo-European migrations, the Indo-Iranian migrations and with other Eurasian nomads. Many scholars also believe that the Dravidian speakers migrated to South Asia from the north-west. Other migrations that are connected with South Asia include the migrations of Ghandari/ Niya Prakrit, Parya and Dumaki speakers, the Indo-Scythians, the Indo-Greeks and the Islamic conquest of South Asia.

Indo-Aryan migration - History

When British and European language students first encountered Sanskrit in the late 18th century, they naturally assumed Sanskrit was the oldest of the Indo-European languages & the fount of all the others. As the study of language progressed, it became clear -- for very technical reasons -- that this could not be the case: there had existed a still older language (Proto-Indo-European) from which all the Indo-European languages descended. This reconstructed language had clearly come from a temperate climate, north of the Himalayas. Hence the Indo-Aryan languages had migrated down into the South Asian plains.

Initially, in line with 19th century ideas, an Aryan 'invasion' was made the vehicle of the language transfer. Then, in the later 20th century, ideas were refined, and so now migration + acculturation are seen as the methods whereby Indo-Aryan spread into northwest South Asia. These changes are exactly in line with changes in thinking about other language transfers. For example, the Anglo-Saxons were once thought to have invaded Britain and murdered virtually all the Celts. It is now recognised that only small numbers migrated from the Continent. Nevertheless, Anglo-Saxon (Old English) replaced the older Celtic languages.

This broader picture is virtually unknown to those who support the notion of an South Asian origin for the Indo-Aryan languages. Combining the 19th century notion of an Aryan 'invasion' with the contentious concept of an innately superior Aryan race employed by some 19th century scholars, some still contest that any migration of Indo-Aryans whatsoever took place. But many 19th century scholars, even, strongly rejected the idea of an Aryan 'race'. This too is practically unknown to the anti-migrationists.

It should be noted that Indus Valley civilization, discovered in the 1920s, was unknown to 19th century scholars. The discovery of an urban civilization in decline roughly contemporaneous to the proposed migration movement was seen initially as an independent confirmation of these early suggestions (compare the causal relations between the decline of the Roman Empire and the Germanic Migration Period). But now the Indo-Aryan migration is placed subsequent to the decline of the Indus Valley peoples.

The debate over such an invasion, and the proposed influx of elements of Vedic religion from Central Asia is still politically charged and hotly debated in India. Hindutva (Hindu nationalist) organizations, especially, remain opposed to the concept, for political and religious reasons. Many Indian Marxists and a fraction of the Dalit Movement support the theory, as do a number of uncommitted Indians.

Indo-Aryan migration - Linguistics

The linguistic facts of the situation are little disputed. However, linguistic data alone cannot determine whether this migration was peaceful or invasive. Different linguists have argued for either, or for a combination of both, on extra-linguistic grounds.

Most of the languages of northern South Asia belong to a single language family, the Indo-Aryan subgroup of the Indo-European family of languages. The languages of South India belong to a different language family, the Dravidian languages, which has not been proven to be linked with any other language family. While Dravidian languages are primarily confined to the South of India, there is a striking exception: the Brahui (which is spoken in parts of Balochistan, Pakistan), the linguistic equivalent of a relict population, indicating that Dravidian languages were formerly much more widespread and were supplanted by the incoming Indo-Aryan languages. The Elamite language, an extinct language of Southwestern Iran, has also often been linked to Dravidian (in a proposed Elamo-Dravidian or Zagrosian family); if this turns out to be true, it would even more strongly imply a more northerly former distribution of the Dravidian languages.

Linguists have several rules of thumb they use to gauge the place of origin of a family. One is that the area of highest linguistic diversity of a language family is usually fairly close to the area of its origin; thus, for example, while the modern nation with the highest number of speakers of Germanic languages is the United States, the highest diversity of longstanding Germanic languages is found in northern Europe. By this criterion, South Asia seems to be an exceedingly unlikely candidate for the origin of the Indo-European languages — it has only one Indo-European subfamily, Indo-Aryan, not counting recent introductions of European languages — and eastern Europe appears much more promising; conversely, the highest diversity in Dravidian is found among its Northern branches. However, extinctions of unrecorded languages may affect this measure.

Most linguists believe Indo-European to have originated somewhere around the Black Sea: a favorite candidate is the Kurgan culture.

The presence of retroflex consonants (including L) in Vedic Sanskrit is generally taken by linguists to indicate the influence of a non-Indo-European speaking substratum population, since these sounds are found throughout Dravidian and Munda and are reconstructed for proto-Dravidian and proto-Munda, but are not reconstructible for proto-Indo-European — nor even proto-Indo-Iranian — and are extremely rare among other Indo-European languages (they phonetically emerged in Swedish and Norwegian only in recent centuries, as a result of combinations with r.) This argument is strengthened by the presence of words with Dravidian and Munda etymologies in Sanskrit, argued to be evidence of Dravidian and/or Munda substrata. Some of these etymologies have been challenged, though most have not.

While, to many, all of this may clearly suggest an Indo-European migration into South Asia, critics of the Aryan invasion theory note that this does not automatically imply a migration around 1500 BC from the Northwest. Any migration could have occurred much earlier and may not have resulted in any conflict (vide Colin Renfrew). Renfrew, however, is an archaeologist whose specialism is in British & aspects of Western European, archaeology. The proposed date of the migration is based on technical linguistic considerations.

Critics note that many of the oldest forms with retroflexes arose in combination with a liquid semi-vowel (i.e. paT from palt, bhāN from bhaln, etc) as in the Nordic languages. They also argue that the "substratum" influences from Dravidian and Munda could equally well be adstratum influences through mutual contact without conquest, or superstratum given the advanced nature of the precedent Mature Harappan culture. There are, however, technical linguistic grounds for assigning substrate, adstrate, or superstrate relationships between languages. The three terms are not synonyms. They have a technical, not an arbitrary, meaning.

Indo-Europeanists note that the names of the flora and fauna reconstructible for Proto-Indo-European, all come from temperate climates. These words include: hornbeam, ash, poplar, oak, pine, elm, alder, maple, etc. Words for fruits include cherry & apple -- not native to South Asia. The word 'eider'(duck) can be reconstructed in PIE. The eider-duck spends the summer on the Siberian coast & winters much further inland. It is not found in South Asia. Also, words for weather (snow, ice, hail), as reconstructed for PIE, indicate a temperate climate.

Anti-migrationist critics note that the meaning of some words for temperate-climate flora and fauna, e.g., salmon and beech tree, varies from branch to branch. These critics consider the exact referent of the terms to be as yet unestablished. Proponents of the claim that Indo-European originated in South Asia further note that Sanskrit names of purely South Asian animals have IE etymologies: mayUra for peacock; vyAghra for tiger; mahiSa for buffalo; pRshatI for spotted deer; iBha and hastin for elephant. -- The claim for mayUra is disputed: one specialist (Prof. M. Witzel) finds that the word has nonIE -- Dravidian -- roots.

Indo-Europeanists note that these names appear to be derived rather than basic words — for instance, hastin is Sanskrit for "having a hand" (i.e. its trunk) — and that they cannot be reconstructed for Proto-Indo-European. Anti-migrationists find this last unsurprising, since one would expect such words to have been lost by people traveling to regions without peacocks and elephants. But:- PIE is older than IE. Therefore such words must be reconstructible in PIE -- if, that is, PIE arose in South Asia.

However, many animal names reconstructable in PIE are also derivatives (cf. rkþos "harmer, bear", wlkwos "ripper, wolf", and bhebheru "brown one, beaver/mongoose"). The roots of these words retain their meanings in Sanskrit (rksh "harm", vrk "rip", bhr "brown"). -- This point cuts both ways, of course.

The early formation of political states also affects the distribution of languages. The Punjab was in historical times settled by Iranians, Greeks, Kushans (replacing Greeks and their language), and Hephthalites, yet Indo-Aryan languages dominate, probably due to the dominance of later South Asian empires and states. Hence in regions where Persian and South Asian empires dominated many languages died out. This process can be seen in the elimination of Saka and Tocharian languages through the influence of Persians, Buddhism (spreading Prakit language), and Turks.

A non-Indo-Aryan substratum in the river-names and place-names of the Rig Vedic homeland would support an external origin of the Indo-Aryans. However most place-names in the Rig-Veda and the vast majority of the river-names in the north-west of South Asia are Indo-Aryan (Bryant 2001).

Indo-Aryan migration - Philology

Indo-Aryan migration - Rig Veda

The Rigveda is by far the most archaic testimony of Vedic Sanskrit. It describes a pastoral or nomadic, mobile culture, still centered on the Indo-Iranian Soma cult and fire worship. The purely nomadic and/or pastoral character of the Rig Vedic people is however disputed. The mobile nature of the Vedic religion is illustrated by the laying out of the ritual precinct as part of the ritual, rather than the existence of fixed temples. This holds for the invitation of Indra to the Soma ritual as well as for the Agnicayana, the piling-up of the fire altar. Cities or fortresses (púra) are mentioned in the Rigveda mainly as the abode of hostile peoples, while the Aryan tribes live in vísha, a term translated as "settlement, homestead, house, dwelling", but also "community, tribe, troops".

Indra in particular is described as destroyer of fortresses, e.g. RV 4.30.20:

The Rig Veda does contain some phrases referring to elements of an urban civilization, other than the mere viewpoint of an invader aiming at sacking the fortresses. These references become increasingly frequent in the younger books 1 and 10, linguistically dated as contemporary to the early parts of the Atharvaveda and the mantras of the Yajurveda. Here, for example, Indra is compared to the lord of a city (purapatis) in RV 1.173.10, a ship with a hundred oars is mentioned in 1.116 and metal forts (purās ayasīs) in 10.101.8. Since the Vedic books appear to have been composed over a long period of gradual change, rather than being a snapshot of society at one particular moment, these late Rigvedic books may indeed describe an urbanized amalgamation of pastoral Indo-Aryan culture with indigenous, Late Harappan elements even in the view of proponents of immigration, roughly representing the early phase of the Kuru kingdom (ca. 12th century BC). Furthermore, there were also cities in the Post-Harappan period in the Punjab region.

However, many scholars argue that the nomadic or village culture of the Rig Vedic poets could have coexisted with cities. According to S.P. Gupta (1996), "ancient civilizations had both the components, the village and the city, and numerically villages were many times more than the cities. (...) if the Vedic literature reflects primarily the village life and not the urban life, it does not at all surprise us.". According to Gregory Possehl (1977), the "extraordinary empty spaces between the Harappan settlement clusters" indicates that pastoralists may have "formed the bulk of the population during Harappan times" (Bryant 2001: 195). Agriculturalists, pastoralists as well as the city and village life may have coexisted in the same region.

In Rig Veda 1.84.17 and 4.4.1. and probably two other instances the Rig Veda seems to refer to elephants (Bryant 2001: 323), an animal that is native to South Asia.

The geography of the Rig Veda seems to be centered around the land of the seven rivers. The Rig Veda has no clear references to places in the distant northwest or southeast of this region. This indicates that the Rig-Vedic people lived in the Indus-Sarasvati region, but does not necessary prove that they weren't aware of external regions. Some scholars have tried to reconstruct the supposed migrations of the Rigvedic people based on their ordering of the mandalas. However, the correct ordering of the Mandalas and their relation to the chronology and geography of the Rig Veda is controversial. There is in the Rig Veda and other Hindu texts no clear reference to an external homeland or origin of the Vedic Aryans (in contrast to other texts like the Avesta).

Later texts than the Rig Veda (such as the Puranas) seem to be more centered in the Ganges region. This shift from the Indus-Sarasvati region to the Yamuna-Ganges region could be a matter of internal history within South Asia and does not by itself prove that the Vedic people originated from beyond the Afghanistan-Punjab region. According to the Yajur Veda, Yajnavalkya (one of the Vedic Seers) lived in the eastern region of Mithila (Bryant 2001: 64).

The Saraswati is lauded as the main river (naditama) in the 'Rig Veda' & is the most frequently mentioned in the text. It is said to be a great flood and to be wide, even endless in size. Saraswati is said to be "pure in course from the mountains to the sea".

The Saraswati, as modern land studies now reveal, was indeed one of the largest, if not the largest river in South Asia. In early ancient and pre-historic times, it once drained the Sutlej, Yamuna and the Ganges, whose courses were much different than they are today.

Proponents of continuity often focus on the Rigvedic descriptions of the Saraswati River, identified with the seasonal Ghaggar-Hakra River and the dried up Ghaggar Hakra riverbed. Most of the archaeological Indus Valley sites lie along the remains of this riverbed. Excavation has shown that the great majority of the sites of the Indus Valley culture were east, not west of Indus. In fact, the largest concentration of sites appears in an area of Punjab and Rajsthan near the dry banks of ancient Saraswati and Drishadvati rivers. Before or around 1900 BC, however, the Hakra river appears to have dried up, causing the decline of the Indus Valley civilization. Then how could the Aryans have known of this river and establish their culture on its banks if it dried up before they arrived?

Several other rivers have also been called Saraswati historically, and proponents of Indo-Aryan immigration argue that even if the Ghaggar was named Saraswati in late Rigvedic times, the name may have been transferred from another river, possibly the Helmand River of Afghanistan.

The 'Rig Veda' has nearly 100 references to ocean (samudra), as well as dozens of references to ships, and to rivers flowing in to the sea.

Proponents of the Aryan migration theory claim that samudra can also mean 'body of water, lake' and note that reed boats are still used regularly on lakes in parts of Afghanistan. The references to 'oceans' & 'ships' would seem to indicate a Rigvedic homeland in northwestern South Asia rather than in landlocked Afghanistan. However, a minority of scholars argue that Samudra means "river" in the Rig Veda.

Indo-Aryan migration - Vedic and Puranic King lists

The Vedic and Puranic king lists indicate a greater antiquity of the Vedic culture (see e.g. F.E. Pargiter [1922] 1979), but this evidence and the accuracy of these lists is disputed. In Arrian's Indica, Megasthenes is quoted as stating that the South Asias counted from Shiva (Dionysos) to Chandragupta Maurya (Sandracottus) "a hundred and fifty-three kings over six thousand and forty-three years." The Brhadaranyaka Upanishad (4.6.), ca. 8th century BCE, mentions 57 links in the Guru-Parampara ("succession of teachers"). This would mean that this Guru-Parampara would go back about 1400 years, although the accuracy of this list is disputed (see Klaus Klostermaier 1989 and Arvind Sharma 1995).

Indo-Aryan migration - Puranas

The evidence from the Puranas is often disputed because they date from c.400 to c.1000 CE. The RgVeda dates from before 1200 BCE. Thus the RgVeda & the Puranas are separated by approximately 1600 to 2200 years.

The Puranas do refer to a migration of Indo-Aryan speakers. They record that the Druhyus were driven out of the land of the seven rivers by Mandhatr and that their next king Ghandara settled in a north-western region which became known as Ghandara. The sons of the later Druhyu king Pracetas finally migrate to the region north of Afghanistan. This migration is recorded in the following Puranas: Bhagavata 9.23.15-16; Visnu 4.17.5; Vayu 99.11-12; Brahmanda 3.74.11-12 and Marsya 48.9. (see e.g. Pargiter [1922] 1979; Talageri 1993, 2000).

Indo-Aryan migration - Avesta and Airyanem Vaejah

The language of the Gathas (the oldest part of the Avesta) is very similar to the language of the Rig Veda. Therefore the date of the Avesta could also indicate the date of the Rig Veda. However, the date of the Gathas is uncertain. The ancient Greeks dated Zarathustra (and thus the Gathas) to 6000 BCE or to the 6th century BCE. Some scholars claim that the Gathas date to before 1100 BCE and could also be much older (see Bryant 2001).

The Avesta however, unlike the Rig Veda, does speak of an Airyanem Vaejah, an external homeland of the Avestan Aryas and of Zarathustra. The term Vaejah can be derived from the Vedic "vij" and would thus suggest the region of a fast-flowing river (see Bryant 2001: 327). The location of Airyanem Vaejah is disputed. Some of the places that have been suggested are the Hindukush and Afghanistan. The Avesta does also not seem to know the region north of the Sir Darya (Jaxartes) or the western Iranian region (see Bryant 2001). The lower Oxus region, south of the Aral Sea, seems to be an outlying region for the Avestan people (Bryant 2001: 327).

Indo-Aryan migration - Archaeology

The Indo-Aryans were nomadic or at least peripatetic, following their herds of cows around from pasture to pasture. Consequently they had no permanent settlements; the RgVeda only mentions temporary huts. These leave no archaeological record. So it is only to be expected that the migrations left no archaeological traces. The Huns are a comparable instance. No one doubts that the Huns actually invaded parts of western Europe on more than one occasion. Yet -- because the Huns were nomads -- they left no archaeological remains behind. The records come from other sources.

There is no clear evidence in the archaeological record for an intrusion of Indo-Aryan people into South Asia. Many archaeologists argue that the available data reflects indigenous cultural developments (see e.g. Shaffer 1984b, Bryant 2001). J.M. Kenoyer (1991a) and many other archaeologists have pointed out that "current evidence does not support a pre- or proto-historic Indo-Aryan invasion of southern Asia.... Instead, there was an overlap between Late Harappan and post-Harappan communities...with no biological evidence for major new populations.". Furthermore, scholars like D.K. Chakrabarti (1977) have also pointed out that northwestern South Asia always had cultural exchanges and trade contacts with Afghanistan and other western regions (Bryant 2001: 233). According to Erdosy (1995), cultural traits that have been associated with Vedic culture "originate in different places at different times and circulate widely" and it is therefore "impossible ... to regard the widespread distribution of certain beliefs and rituals ... as evidence of population movements." (Bryant 2001: 214-215).

Proto-Indo-Iranians are usually identified with the Sintashta-Petrovka culture of Russia and Kazakhstan. It is there that the earliest chariots are found. The follow-up Andronovo culture and BMAC correspond to the earliest phase of the rapid expansion that would reach into the Caucasus, the Iranian plateau, Afganistan, and the South Asia. Indo-Aryans also intruded into Mesopotamia and Syria, and introduced the chariot and horse-culture to this part of the world. They left linguistic remains in a Hittite discourse on horse-training written by one "Kikkuli the Mitanni". Other evidence is found in references to the names of Mitanni rulers and the gods they swore by in treaties; these remains are found in the archives of the Mitanni's neighbors. The time period for this is about 1500 BCE.

Based on linguistic data, many scholars argue that the Indo-Aryan languages were introduced to South Asia in the 2nd millennium BCE. The standard model for the entry of the Indo-European languages into South Asia is that this first wave went over the Hindukush, forming the Gandhara grave culture, either into the headwaters of the Indus or the Ganges (and probably, both). The language of the Rigveda, earliest stratum of Vedic Sanskrit is assigned to about 1500-1200 BC.

Indo-Aryan migration - Indus Valley Civilization

Indo-Aryan migration into the northern Punjab is thus approximately contemporaneous to the final phase of the decline of the Indus-Valley civilization. Many scholars have argued that the historical Vedic culture is the result of an amalgamation of the immigrating Indo-Aryans with the remnants of the indigenous civilization, such as the OCP and Cemetary H cultures.

Elements supposedly introduced to South Asia in the course of the migration include the Soma cult, as well as the horse and chariot.

Only five percent of the known Indus Valley sites have been excavated, so one can expect a constant stream of archaeological evidence to be unearthed in the future. Unlike hermeneutic evidence, there are very few issues with archaeological evidence, primarily due to the relative reliability of Carbon-14 and Thermo-luminescence dating.

The discovery of the Harappa and Mohenjo-daro sites changed the theory from an invasion of implicitly advanced Aryan people on an aboriginal population to an invasion of nomadic barbarians on an advanced urban civilization, an argument associated with the mid-20th century archaeologist Mortimer Wheeler.

Among the archaeological signs claimed by Wheeler to support the theory of an invasion are the many unburied corpses found in the top levels of Mohenjo-daro. They were interpreted by Wheeler as victims of a conquest of the city, but Wheeler's interpretation is not anymore accepted by many scholars (e.g. Bryant 2001). Wheeler himself expressed no certainty, but wrote, in a famous phrase, that "Indra stands accused".

Similar weight has been placed on differences in the types of metals used in either civilization; the importance of the bull to the Indus Valley civilization as evidenced by imagery in seals and pottery, in contrast to the Vedic cow-worship; the importance of the tiger in the Indus Valley Civilization and its absence in the Vedic texts; the absence of the six spoked Aryan wheel and the heavy consumption of fish by the Indus Valley dwellers in contrast to the virtual absence of fish in the Vedas. Proponents of a continuous civilisation point out that the bull is mentioned numerous times in the Vedas (next only to the horse), for example verses comparing Soma to the bull [Rig Veda 1:32, 9:92] and Exploits of Indra [Rig Veda 1:33, 7:24, 10:86]. The sacred place of the cow is not Vedic; it originated in later Hinduism during the time of Krishna the cowherd. There are no verses in the Vedas that speak about the need to refrain from cow-slaughter. Verses mentioning fish do exist in the Rig Veda (7:18, 10:68) and the tiger is mentioned in the Yajur Veda (4:4, 5:3, 6:2, 7:7). Terra-cotta figurines excavated are claimed to show chariots with spokes painted (at KaliBangan) or shown in relief (at Banawali).

Recently, the excavation of Dholavira in the Gujarat province of India is claimed by the same camp to show a city that is consistent with Vedic principles of city planning: arameshthina, madhyamesthina and avameshtina or upper, middle and lower cities [1].

Proponents of continuity focus on stressing that the Rig-Vedic culture is native to the South Asia, urban in nature, makes constant references to bodies of water (Central Asian nomads would not have been exposed to seas) and a chronological peer of the Harappan culture, and that perhaps they are the same culture. Their arguments may focus on linguistics, use of metals, domestication of horses or differences in described geography, but their basic focus is to identify the Rig-Vedic culture with at least a part the Indus Valley civilization.

A regional cultural discontinuity occurred during the second millennium BC and many Indus Valley cities were abandoned during this period, while many new settlements began to appear in Gujarat and East Punjab and other settlements such as in the western Bahawalpur region increased in size. Shaffer and Liechtenstein (1995) stated that: "This shift by Harappan and, perhaps, other Indus Valley cultural mosaic groups, is the only archaeologically documented west-to-east movement of human populations in South Asia before the first half of the first millennium B.C.." (Shaffer and Liechtenstein 1995: 139). This could have been caused by ecological factors, such as the drying up of the Ghaggar-Hakra River and increased aridity in Rajasthan and other places. The Indus River also began to flow east and floodings occurred (Kenoyer 1995: 224). Jim Shaffer (1986: 230) and other scholars argue that these "internal cultural adjustments" reflect "altered ecological, social and economic conditions affecting northwestern and north-central South Asia" and do not necessarily imply migrations.

It has been pointed out that no iron was discovered in Indus valley sites where as Rig Veda mentions 'ayas', translated as iron.

The Sanskrit term Ayas means metal and can refer to bronze, copper or iron. The Rig Veda refers to Ayas, and also states that the Dasyus had Ayas (RV 2.20.8). The references to Ayas in the Rig Veda probably refer to bronze or copper rather than to iron (e.g. Frawley 1991). The 'Atharva Veda' and 'Yajur Veda' speak of different colors of 'ayas'(such as red & black), showing that it was a generic term for metal.(Frawley 1991)

The Atharva Veda and the Satapatha Brahmana however refer to krsna ayas ("black metal"), which could be iron (but possibly also iron ore and iron items not made of smelted iron). While there is to date no proven evidence for smelted iron in the Indus Valley Civilization, iron ore and iron items have been unearthed in eight Indus Valley sites, some of them dating to before 2600 BCE (see Bryant 2001: 246-248, 339). There remains the possibility that some of these items were made of smelted iron, and the term "krsna ayas" might possibly also refer to these iron items, even if they are not made of smelted iron. The earliest evidence for smelted iron in South Asia dates to 1300 to 1000 BCE (see Bryant 2001: 246-248). These early findings also occur in places like the Deccan, and according to D.K. Chakrabarti, the earliest evidence for smelted iron occurs in inner South Asia, not in north-western South Asia (Bryant 2001: 246). Moreover, the dates for iron in South Asia are not later than in those of Central Asia, and according to some scholars (e.g. Koshelenko 1986) the dates for smelted iron may actually be earlier in South Asia than in Central Asia and Iran (see Bryant 2001: 247). The Iron Age did however not necessary imply a major social transformation, and Gregory Possehl wrote that "the iron age is more of a continuation of the past then a break with it" (Bryant 2001).

J.M. Kenoyer (1995) also remarks that there is a "long break in tin acquisition" necessary for the production of "tin bronzes" in the Indus Valley region, suggesting a lack of contact with Balochistan and northern Afghanistan, or the lack of migrants from the north-west who could have procured tin.

At Kalibangan (at the Ghaggar river) the remains of what some writers claims to be fire altars have been unearthed. Some of their characteristics suggest that they could have been used for Vedic sacrifices. In addition the remains of a bathing place (suggestive of ceremonial bathing) have been found near the altars in Kalibangan (B.B. Lal. Frontiers of the Indus Civilization.1984:57-58). S.R. Rao found similar "fire altars" in Lothal which he thinks could have served no other purpose than a ritualistic one (S.R. Rao. The Aryans in Indus Civilization.1993:175). Others suggest that these fire altars could also have been fire pits and ovens, and that bathing is not always for the purpose of ritual purification.

Recent studies also indicate that the region had an exceptionally high frequency of cattle domestication and cattle mtDNA studies indicate that South Asia may be one of two regions with cattle domestication (see Shaffer and Liechtenstein 1995, 1999). Terrocaotta cattle figurines, „bullock“ carts and cattle motifs have often been found in the Harappan sites (Shaffer and Liechtenstein 1999: 145-146; 1995). The cow could be seen as a "cultural link" between the ancient Harappans and modern Hindus, because the cow was economically important for the ancient Harappans and has also a religious importance in post-vedic Hinduism. Cattle was also important to the Rigvedic people, and several hymns refer to ten thousand and more cattle (e.g. RV 8.1.33; 8.2.41; 8.4.20; 8.5.37; 8.6.47; 8.21.18; 5.27.1; 1.126.3). Rig Veda 7.95.2. and other verses (e.g. 8.21.18) also mention that the Sarasvati region poured milk and "fatness" (ghee), indicating that cattle were herded in this region.

It has been claimed that traces of horses are absent from the Indus Valley civilization, while the Vedas make frequent mention of the horse. Still, though the earliest domestication of the horse is widely agreed to have occurred in the grasslands of Central Asia, the first use of horses in South Asia is a topic of great dispute.

Further excavations discovered horses not only in Indus Valley sites but also in pre-Indus sites. Remains of horses have been found among other places in Mahagara near Allahabad (dated to c. 2265 BC to 1480 BC, described as Equus caballus Linn), Hallur in Karnataka (c.1500 - 1300 BC, described as Equus caballus), Mohenjo-Daro, Harappa ("small horse"), Lothal (a terracotta figurine and a molar horse tooth, dated to 2200 BC), Kalibangan, and Kuntasi (dated to 2300 – 1900 BC). A clay model of a horse has been found in Mohenjo-Daro and a horse figurine in Periano Ghundai in the Indus Valley. However, most of these reports have also been criticized because of the difficulty even for specialists to distinguish remains of the Equus caballus Linn from other horse species (see Edwin Bryant. 2001: 169-175).

Horse remains from the Harappan site Surkotada (dated to c. 2400-1700 BC) have been identified by A.K. Sharma as being of the Equus caballus species. The horse specialist Sandor Bökönyi (1997) later confirmed these conclusions and stated that the excavated tooth specimens could "in all probability be considered remnants of true horses [i.e. Equus caballus Linn]". Bökönyi stated that "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 incisors and phalanges (toe bones)." (quoted by Prof. B.B. Lal from Bökönyi's letter to the Director of the Archaeological Survey of India, 13-12-1993, in New Light on the Indus Civilization, Aryan Books, Delhi 1998, p.111). However, others like Meadow (1997) still disagree, because remains of the Equus caballus Linn" horse are difficult to distinguish even by specialists from other horse species like Equus asinus (donkeys) or Equus hemionus (onagers) (see Edwin Bryant. 2001:169-175).

It has also been suggested that the horse, while rare (because of climatic factors) and nonnative, could always have been a highly sought after import item for South Asians up to modern times. Trautmann (1982) thus remarked that the supply and import of horses has always been a preoccupation of the South Asian and that "it is a structure of its history, then, that South Asia has always been dependent upon western and central Asia for horses." (Bryant 2001). The paucity of horse remains could also be explained by South Asia's climatic factors which lead to a faster decay of horse bones. Additionally horse remains may also be sparse because horses were probably neither used in burials nor eaten by the Harappans. Horses are also not depicted on the Harappan seals. However, other animals that were known to the Harappans are not depicted either (e.g. the female cow and the camel), which could probably be explained by a social taboo.

There is also only one clear reference to actual horse riding in the Rig Veda (5.61-62), and McDonnell and Keith point out that the Rig Veda does not describe people riding horses in battle (see Bryant 2001: 117). The Rig Veda also states that the Dasyus also had horses (RV 7.18.19; 3.34.9).

It should however also be noted that other sites like the BMAC complex (which some consider nevertheless as Indo-Aryan) are at least as poor in horse remains as the Harappan sites (e.g. Bryant 2001). Colin Renfrew (1999) also remarked that "the significance of the horse ... has been much exaggerated" and Bryant holds that "using such negative evidence, by the same logic used to eliminate South Asia as a candidate, ultimately any potential homeland can be disqualified due to lacking some fundamental Proto-Indo-European item or another (Bryant 2001: 120).

The earliest chariot that has been found in South Asia (at Atranjikhera) has been dated to 350 - 50 BCE (see Edwin Bryant 2001), but Rigvedic references indicate that it must have been known long before that period. There is however evidence of wheeled vehicles (especially miniature models) in the Indus Valley Civilization, but no undisputed evidence of chariots. It is however also highly unlikely that such a perishable item like the chariot could have been preserved in the South Asia climate since Harappan times.

Moreover, the whole idea of nomads with horse-drawn chariots has been challenged. Chariots are not the vehicles of nomads. Their usage occured only in ancient urban cultures with much flat land, of which the river plain of north South Asia was the most suitable. Chariots are totally unsuitable for crossing mountains and deserts, as the proposed Aryan invasion required.

Indo-Aryan migration - Vasishta head

A copper item representing a human head styled in the manner described for the Rigvedic Vasishtas has been dated to around 3700 B.C. in three western universities using among other tests carbon 14 tests, spectographic analysis, X-ray dispersal analysis and metallography (Hicks and Anderson. Analysis of an Indo-European Vedic Aryan Head - 4500-2500 B.C., in Journal of IE studies 18:425-446. Fall 1990.). This could suggest that some Rigvedic customs were already known at a very early time, though the possibility remains that the bronze head could have been recast from an earlier item. Unfortunately the head was not found in an archaeological context. (It was rescued from being melted down in Delhi.)

Indo-Aryan migration - Pottery

Wilhelm Rau (1974) has examined the references to pottery in the Vedic texts and has for example noted that according to the Black Yajur Veda and the Taittiriya Samhita hand made pottery was used for ritual purposes. According to Kuzmina (1983), Vedic pottery that matches Willhelm's Rau description cannot be found in Central Asia and is also distinct from the pottery of the Andronovo culture (see Bryant 2001).

Indo-Aryan migration - West Asia

Traces of Indo-Aryan culture have been found in Mesopotamia (including regions like Syria and Palestine). The Mitanni treaties (ca. 1500 BCE) refer to four Vedic gods (and many non-Vedic gods) and use Indo-Aryan terms. The names of many kings have an Indo-Aryan character. Some of these names may date to the 17th century BCE or even earlier. Paul Thieme (1960) and other scholars concluded that these Mitanni names and terms are Indo-Aryan and not Iranian (see Bryant 2001). Whether some terms of the Kassites refer to Vedic gods or names is disputed.

It is disputed whether the Mitannis migrated to Mesopotamia from Central Asia, Iran or from South Asia. Many scholars argue that the Mitannis migrated from Central Asia or Iran to Mesopotamia. There is however according to Brentjes (1981) no evidence in the archaeological record for a Central Asian origin of the Mitannis (see Bryant 2001: 137). In contrast to this, Brentjes (1981) points out that the Mitanni culture used the peacock motif, which suggests that the Mitannis were familiar with South Asia. Some of these peacock motifs are dated to before 1600 BCE and probably to before 2100 BCE (see Bryant 2001). Several scholars have also argued that the language of these treaties is Middle Indo-Aryan (see Bryant 2001). For example the Prakrit form of the number seven ("Satta") is used. This could indicate that Middle Indo-Aryan had developed much earlier than previously assumed and could support the theory that the Mitannis originated from South Asia. The date of the Mitanni treaties also indicates that the Indo-Aryan language was distinct from the Indo-European and Indo-Iranian languages in 1500 BCE or before.

The Sumerian legend of "Enmerkar and the Lord of Aratta" (late 3rd millennium BCE) and other Sumerian legends might also possibly refer to an Indo-Aryan culture or to modern East-Iran/Afghanistan/Pakistan (see Elst 1999). The Indus Valley Civilization also had some trade contacts with Mesopotamia. Herodotus (7:61) mentions "Aratti (Artaians)" as an alternative name for the Persians.

Indo-Aryan migration - Astronomical data

Proponents of continuity state that evidence in the Vedas points to a considerably earlier dating of the text. As an example, they argue that the positions of stars described in the Vedas occurred in 2000 BC or even earlier. Such dating claims are controversial.

Indo-Aryan migration - Physical Anthropology

Brian E. Hemphill and Alexander F. Christensen's study (1994) of the migration of genetic traits does not support a movement of Aryan speakers into the Indus Valley around 1500 BC. According to Hemphill's study, "Gene flow from Bactria occurs much later, and does not impact Indus Valley gene pools until the dawn of the Christian era."

Kenneth Kennedy (1984), who examined 300 skeletons from the Indus Valley civilization, concludes that the ancient Harappans “are not markedly different in their skeletal biology from the present-day inhabitants of Northwestern India and Pakistan”(p.102).

A later study (Hemphill, Lukacs and Kennedy 1991, see also Kenneth Kennedy 1995) finds no evidence of discontinuities in the skeletal record during and immediately after the decline of the Indus Valley Civilization. The two discontinuities that Kennedy finds in the prehistoric skeletal record do not correspond to the second millennium BCE. The first of these discontinuities occurred between 6000-4500 BCE (a separation of the Neolithic and Chalcolithic inhabitants of Mehrgarh), and the second occurred after 800 BCE (between 800-200 BCE). He concludes that "there is no evidence of demographic disruptions in the north-western sector of the subcontinent during and immediately after the decline of the Harappan culture. If Vedic Aryans were a biological entity represented by the skeletons from Timargarha, then their biological features of cranial and dental anatomy were not distinct to a marked degree from what we encountered in the ancient Harappans.” (1995: 54). Comparing the Harappan and Gandhara cultures, Kennedy remarks that: “Our multivariate approach does not define the biological identity of an ancient Aryan population, but it does indicate that the Indus Valley and Gandhara peoples shared a number of craniometric, odontometric and discrete traits that point to a high degree of biological affinity.” (1995: 49). The craniometric variables of prehistoric and living South Asians also showed an "obvious separation" from the prehistoric people of the Iranian plateau and western Asia (1995: 49).

Indo-Aryan migration - Genetics and Archaeogenetics

See also

• Indo-Aryans, Aryan, Arya, Aryavarta, Indo-Aryan languages
• Rigveda
• Indo-Iranians, Indo-Iranian languages
• BMAC, Andronovo culture
• Mitanni
• Kurgan

Adapted from the Wikipedia article "Indo-Aryan migration", under the G.N U Free Docmentation License. Please also see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki