Indo-Aryan migration: Encyclopedia II - Indo-Aryan migration - Archaeology

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.

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