Myth of the Aryan Invasion
Update 2001, from new edition from Voice of India
By David Frawley (Vamadeva Shastri)
© 1996-2001 All rights reserved
Aryan Invasion or Migration: An Update and a Look Forward
As readers look at the ongoing debate relative to ancient India
(2001), they surprisingly see that the main scholars who used to
support the Aryan Invasion Theory (AIT)—whether leftists in
India like Romila Thapar or American academics like Michael Witzel—now
claim to no longer accept it. We might think that the myth of the
Aryan Invasion has been exposed and is now being removed from history
books.
However, the same scholars speak of the Aryans coming into India
with their language, their Gods, their horses and their chariots
about the same time as the old Invasion scenario (c. 1500 BCE).
While some of them insist that the Aryans entered in significant
numbers, most portray it as a cultural diffusion that involved only
small groups of people. If we look carefully, therefore, we see
that the invasionist scenario has been replaced with a not too different
migration/acculturation theory. Though the main edifice of the Aryan
Invasion has been removed—the invading Aryan hordes that destroyed
Harappa—the conclusion that the Vedas represent an intrusive
culture from Central Asia persists.
Yet instead of acknowledging that the idea of the Aryan destruction
of Harappa was a great blunder which casts a shadow over their entire
approach to ancient India, such former supports of the theory would
simply push it under the rug. They are trying to pretend that it
makes no difference. Even if the Aryans did not destroy Harappa,
even if there is no evidence of significant populations coming from
the northwest into India, even though the archaeological record
shows an unbroken continuity of civilization from the pre-Harappan
to the post-Harappan periods in the very regions described in Vedic
texts—they still hold to their earlier estimation of Vedic
culture as an import from Central Asia. Yet, if they were so wrong
about the end of Harappa, how can they still be so right that the
Vedic culture was later and not connected to Harappa?
What is more incredulous is that, even after recognizing that the
idea of an Aryan destruction of Harappa was an error, these scholars
have made no effort to remove this faulty scenario from textbooks.
They act as if this mistaken interpretation has nothing to do with
them and is not their responsibility to correct! The Aryan Invasion
theory spawned many distortions and denigrations of India, as earlier
portions of this booklet address. The image of the Aryans as the
cruel destroyers of Harappa—the Aryans as militant fascists
and racists—continues to be used by various groups inside
and outside India, for political and religious advantage.
Instead of trying to correct this view that they now regard as
wrong, the same scholars complain that those who connect Vedic literature
with Harappan civilization are only acting out of political motives
or projecting a religious bias. Therefore, whatever evidence for
ancient India as a Vedic culture is proposed, they need not take
seriously. They use this argument to refuse even to look at the
massive Sarasvati river data, as if even geological evidence could
be rejected as politically incorrect.
One might ask: What makes the Aryan Invasion/Migration theory such
a big issue? After all, it concerns events of over three thousand
years ago that really shouldn’t be relevant to anyone today.
Does what might have happened in ancient Europe or America thousands
of years ago arouse such passions today? What this debate really
represents is a ‘clash of cultures’, to use a current
phrase. The Aryan Invasion/Migration view represents a largely Eurocentric
interpretation of Indic civilization. It holds that Vedic literature
doesn’t even represent the country that has so long honored
and preserved it and places a big question mark over its validity.
The real struggle behind this debate is between two views of humanity—a
largely western-based view that is materialistic in nature, viewing
history in terms of economics and politics, and a largely eastern
view that follows a spiritual or dharmic approach. The Aryan debate
reflects the West’s failure to really face, honor or accept
Indic civilization. It is part of a cultural imperialism that is
holding on long after the colonial armies have left. So ingrained
is this prejudice that those who have it are usually not even aware
of it. On the contrary, they fail to recognize any real Indic tradition
from ancient times and view any attempts to propose one as dangerous—an
atavistic Hindu nationalism that should be opposed by all possible
means.
However, what we could call the pro-Vedic camp—those who
see a deep spirituality and profound culture in the Vedas underlying
the civilization of India—is not made up of poorly educated,
backward or biased Hindus but includes great modern Yogis like Aurobindo,
Vivekananda and Yogananda. It now has a whole array of researchers,
archaeologists, linguists and geologists who have produced extensive
scientific data to support it and whose work is expanding rapidly
every year, while its opponents only rehash the same old failed
interpretations, changing only a few terms in the process.
The greater issues involved in this apparently obscure debate are
quite significant. If ancient India was a Vedic culture, then we
would have to rewrite not only the history of India but also that
of Europe and the Middle East. The whole edifice of western civilization’s
interpretation of history would go down ignominiously. The ancient
Europeans would be cultural offshoots of India and heir to the type
of mystical and yogic vision that India has always held as the basis
of its thought and culture. The Indo-European heritage from India
to Ireland would be that of the largest and perhaps greatest civilization
of the ancient world, Vedic India, in its cultural spread. The change
in our view of history would be as radical as Einstein’s ideas
that changed our view of physics.
Objections to the Aryan Migration Theory
The scholars of the Aryan Migration Theory—the new incarnation
of the invasion view—place the Aryan entry after the end of
Harappan culture in the 1900–1000 BCE era. In the absence
of any evidence of significant migrations, the Aryan takeover of
India has been reduced by most migrationists to a gradual process
of acculturalization from Central Asia accomplished by a small group
of elites. This absolves its proponents from needing to produce
any tangible evidence for it, which they do not have. This Outside
India Theory (OIT) for the Vedas, much like the Aryan Invasion Theory
that it supplants, ignores major data in several areas.
Much important work has been done on the Sarasvati river over the
past few years, through the Geological Society of India and other
scientific groups, with dozens of papers and studies outlining the
change of courses of this great river over the centuries. The migration
theory, just like the invasion theory, ignores the prominence of
the Sarasvati river in Vedic texts. It was the drying up of this
river that brought the Harappan civilization to an end. However,
such scholars even while recognizing that river changes caused the
abandonment of Harappan sites, ignore the fact that the same river
is central to Vedic texts. They will not equate the great lost river
of ancient India with the Vedic Sarasvati, in spite of dozens of
Vedic references to its size and its location. They would still
date the Aryan entrance into India after the drying up of the sacred
river in India that the Vedas honor as their ancestral homeland.
There have also been many new important archaeological findings
that show Harappan civilization to be older and larger than previously
thought. Rakhigarhi, located on the long dry Drishadvati river of
Vedic fame in the Kurukshetra region, though barely excavated, has
been found to be much larger than either Harappa or Mohenjodaro
and perhaps the oldest city of its type. This confirms the Vedic
idea that the Sarasvati-Drishadvati region was the real center and
origin of civilization in ancient India. In addition, the sophisticated
pre-Harappan site, Kunal in Haryana, again in the Sarasvati region,
shows the earlier development of civilization in the region.
Meanwhile, Dholavira, a Harappan site in Kachchh, has been revealed
as one of the largest port cities in the ancient world, dating perhaps
before 3000 BCE. Dholavira is located in what is now desert, some
miles from the sea, and its habitation would only make sense owing
its proximity to what would have then been the delta of the Sarasvati
river. At Dholavira, interesting marble pillars have been found,
marking what is probably a gateway to visitors from across the sea.
Note that in the Rig Veda, Varuna, the Vedic God of the sea, is
associated with great pillars (RV V.62). Such maritime sites as
Dholavira make perfect sense relative to the numerous references
to the ocean in the Rig Veda and its pervasive maritime symbolism.
Archaeological findings are confirming the continuity of Harappan
civilization into the post-Harappan era, albeit with less urban
sites. Harappan arts, crafts and building practices continued long
after the Harappan cities were abandoned. This makes it more difficult
to draw the line between the Harappan era and the supposed intrusive
Vedic culture that came later. The older, vaster and more continuous
Harappan culture becomes, the more difficult it becomes to separate
it from the Vedic. In this regard, we must remember that only a
fraction of Harappan sites that have been found have yet been excavated
and the existent boundaries of Harappan culture are continually
being expanded by new finds.
Above all, the migration theory, like its invasionist ancestor,
ignores the spiritual and philosophical sophistication of Vedic
texts, including the poetic and metrical depth of the Vedic language,
which requires a great civilization to produce. The deities and
rituals portrayed in the Vedas reflect a long period of development
and a synthesis of diverse groups and views, such as would be found
only in the Indian subcontinent. The Vedas are not primitive texts
but the bedrock that could produce the great spiritual traditions
of the region which arose through history.
Just as Vedic literature requires a civilization to produce it,
so does Harappan civilization require a great literature to reflect
it. Such a vast urban culture would have left a literary mark. Certainly,
it could not have been completely overwhelmed by the crude literature
of a few intruders from Central Asia, particularly when that intrusive
tradition was oral, not written, and the Harappans had writing!
Since archaeology now shows that there was no real break in ancient
Indian civilization but only a post-Harappan relocation, the literature
of the region would have persisted as well.
Horse and Chariot
The issue of the horse has become the main line of demarcation
for the invasionists/ migrationists. It has become a one-issue argument
used to neutralize any other data. They see Vedic/Aryan culture
as a movement of horse-riding people into India from Central Asia.
They point out the development of a horse culture at an earlier
period in Central Asia and the lack of horse remains in ancient
India. They equate the Aryans with the horse and chariot and Harappa
with a non-horse, non-chariot and hence non-Vedic culture. Such
a simplistic equation has many flaws and ignores the many other
issues. It overlooks that Vedic culture was essentially a rishi-king
culture, not a horse/nomad culture.
First, one should note that horses and chariots spread throughout
the ancient world from Egypt and China. It was not accompanied by
a radical change of culture, language or population for an entire
subcontinent as has been proposed for ancient India. Ancient Egypt
and China took on horses and chariots without any break in the continuity
of their civilizations. Certainly, ancient India, the largest urban
civilization of its time in the world, could have taken on a new
horse/chariot culture without having to change everything else as
well. Therefore, even if horses or chariots came into India from
the outside at some point in time, this is no reason to assume that
the language and culture of the region had to change as well.
Second, a study of horse anatomy shows that there were two types
of horses in the ancient world that we still find today. There is
a south Asian and Arabian type that has seventeen ribs and a West
and Central Asian horse that has eighteen ribs. The Rig Vedic horse,
as described in the Ashvamedha or horse-sacrifice of the Rig Veda
has thirty-four ribs (seventeen times two for the right and left
side). This shows that the Rig Vedic horse did not come from Central
Asia but was the South Asian breed. The Rig Vedic horse is born
of the ocean, which also indicates southern connections. The Yajur
Veda ends with an invocation of the Divine horse that has the ocean
as its belly (samudra udaram, TS VII.5.25). The Brihadarayaka Upanishad
identifies the day and night as the two greatnesses of the horse
rooted in the eastern and western oceans (BU I.1.2).
Some scholars have argued that there are not enough horse remains
or horse seals to show that the horse was as significant in the
Harappan era as it appears to be in Vedic literature. In this regard,
we see that the unicorn is a common Harappan image. Should we then
imagine that unicorns were common animals of the time? Harappan
seals contain many mythical, composite and multiheaded animals.
The Rig Veda also has such mythic and composite images like the
Vedic bull with four horns, three feet, two heads and seven hands
(RV IV.58.3). Clearly, the Harappan seals are not an anatomical
record of existent animal species!
Horse bones have now been found in Harappan and pre-Harappan sites
in India, not only in the north and west but also in the south and
east, showing that the horse was known to the Harappan people, though
it was probably mainly the south Asian horse. At the same time,
the horse evidence required to prove the Aryan invasion/migration
theory is also lacking. We do not find any significant evidence
of horses coming into India around 1500 BCE in the form of horse
remains, horse encampments or horse images. If the Aryans came with
the horse around 1500 BCE, such remains would be dramatic. There
is no archaeological trail of horse bones into India around 1500
BCE. If the horse were indigenous to India, on the other hand, there
would not be dramatic horse remains at one level as opposed to another.
So far there are no dramatic horse finds at any level. Even in the
Bactria and Margian Archaeological Complex, which is supposed to
be horse rich and a staging area of successive Indo-Aryan migrations/invasions
into India, not a single horse bone has been found yet. This means
that other areas supposedly rich in horses do not exhibit significant
horse remains either.
Moreover, there are many equus bones found in ancient India, particularly
the onager (Equus hemionus), which is native to Kachchh in Gujarat.
There is evidence that the onager was used to draw chariots or battle
cars in ancient Sumeria and was later replaced by the stronger and
faster horse. The same thing probably occurred in India. It is also
likely that the Vedic people did not discriminate between the different
equus animals as strictly as we do the true horse from other breeds.
This means that the Rig Vedic horse (ashva) could have, at least
in the beginning, been an onager, which explains its oceanic connections
as its native region of Kachchh is along the sea in what would have
been the delta of the Sarasvati river.
Other scholars have noted that the Rig Veda knows of a light spoked-wheel
chariot that did not appear in the Middle East until around 2000
BCE, suggesting it must be later than this period. They point out
the lack of chariot remains in Harappan sites. Countering this view,
the spoked-wheel is a common Harappan writing symbol. So there is
evidence that the spoked wheel chariot had considerable antiquity
in Harappan India.
Genetic Information
Genetics is offering us important new information, both in regard
to human and animal populations. India’s climate, flora and
fauna are closely related to those of Southeast Asia, much more
so than to Central Asia or the Middle East. In particular, Indian
cattle (Bos Indicus) are domesticated versions of the wild cattle
of Southeast Asia known as the Banteng (Bos Banteng or Bos Javanicus,
a close relative of the Indian bison or gaur).
The Indian cow is an indigenous breed going back tens of thousands
of years and not an offshoot of the Central and West Asian cow.
Cattle husbandry is an independent development in India, not brought
in from the west. Cattle genetics is even more detrimental to the
migration theories because unlike invaders, migrants would always
travel with their cattle and horses. Cattle genetics does not show
this. As both the ancient Indian cow and horse reflect native breeds,
one can no longer propose that the invading Aryans brought them
in. That the invading Aryans left their cows and horses behind and
adapted those of the indigenous Indians would be a rather silly
proposition.
An examination of human skeletal remains also does not show any
discontinuity from 1900-800 BCE, the period of the proposed Aryan
entrance into India. In a recent article, Hemphill et al state that
there are two discontinuities in the area in so far as the human
remains are concerned. One occurred between 6000-4500 BCE and the
other occurred between 800-200 BCE. In the intervening period, there
is a general biological continuity, notwithstanding a limited interaction
with the populations from the west that has always occurred to some
degree.
Human populations in India show the persistence of the same main
population groups back to the pre-Harappan period and before. There
is no evidence of an intrusion of new populations from West Asia
that altered the genetics of humans in India at the time of the
proposed Aryan intrusion. The skeletal record shows that in most
ways the Indian population is quite unique. As a result, one thing
can safely be asserted: Indians are ancient inhabitants of India
and Southeast Asia (or Greater India) and not recent immigrants.
Their literature should also belong to them.
Linguistics
One of the criticisms of those who reject the invasion/migration
theory is that those who hold that Vedic culture is indigenous to
India have not explained the linguistic situation in India, in which
Sanskritic or Indo-European dialects prevail in the north of India
and west into Central Asia, Iran and Europe, with Dravidian tongues
in the south.
To counter this, I have proposed a model of ‘Sanskritization’,
which is a Hindu term referring to a model of ‘cultural elite
predominance’, to explain the spread of Indo-European languages.
It resembles how English has spread in the modern world, not so
much by migration as by a dominant culture. Harappan India with
its many urban sites provides such a dominant culture that could
have had a far reaching influence on different peoples and their
dialects. Vedic literature provides a vehicle for this. In this
regard, all the river and place names of North India are Sanskritic
as far back as can be traced, confirming it. Even South India has
many Sanskrit place names of great antiquity.
The Rig Vedic language was a synthetic language, combining elements
of the different languages of the region, upholding an older and
sanctified terminology for spiritual and religious purposes. Vedic
Sanskrit, called ‘chhandas’ or meter, was probably a
poetic language acceptable to the various peoples of the region
at least on a religious level. Hence, it could travel far and be
accepted by various groups, even those speaking rather different
common dialects.
While linguists have argued that an elite Aryan culture from Central
Asia could change the languages of India, they have missed the basic
facts of culture and demographics. The civilization of ancient India
was larger, older and more populous than that of Central Asia. Any
primary cultural diffusion would have been from east to west, not
west to east. This is what history shows us, with ancient Indo-Europeans
like the Persians, Greeks and Celts coming originally from regions
to the east of their later homelands.
We must note that linguistic diversity was a characteristic feature
of the entire ancient world. No region—whether Mesopotamia,
Anatolia, Europe or the Mediterranean—had only one linguistic
group. India would not have been different. The persistence of linguistic
diversity in India may not be a sign of an Aryan migration but of
the existence of several old cultures in the region. Just as there
are both Indo-European and Dravidian dialects in India, so there
are both Indo-European dialects in Europe and non-Indo-European
like the Finno-Hungarian and Basque languages. Mesopotomia has Indo-European
(predominantly Iranian) dialects as well as Semetic and other groups
like the Caucasian languages or ancient Sumerian. The division of
linguistic groups in India is no different than that of other regions.
Just as Mesopotamian groups like the Sumerians, Akkadians, Babylonians,
Kassites and Assyrians shared the same basic cultures and deities,
though having several different language groups, so was the situation
in ancient India.
However, even if a migration or invasion is required to explain
the different language groups in India, it must have occurred prior
to 3000 BCE, before the beginnings of urban civilization in the
region. After that period the region was too populated and the basic
culture too well formed to allow for such a massive change of languages
without significant migrations or a clear archaeological record
to support it. Therefore, even if one is compelled to accept certain
linguistic constraints, there is no reason for an invasion/migration
of 1500 BCE.
Southern and Northern Vedic Cultures
A close study of Vedic literature reveals that there were two related
cultures in ancient India. This is one of the main points of my
book, the Rig Veda and the History of India. The first was a northern
kingdom centered on the Sarasvati-Drishadvati river region. It was
dominated by the Purus and the Ikshvakus and their mainly Angirasa
gurus that produced the existent Vedas texts that we have. The second
was a southern culture along the coast of the Arabian Sea in the
Sarasvati delta, and into the Vindhya Mountains. It was dominated
by the Turvashas and Yadus and their mainly Bhrigu gurus and extended
into groups yet further south.
These two groups vied for supremacy and influenced each other in
various ways as the Vedas and Puranas indicate. That is why in Vedic
literature the Turvashas and Yadus, the southern people are the
main enemies, though originally kinsmen, of the Vedic Bharatas.
Great Vedic kings like Divodasa, Srinjaya and Sudas have the Turvashas
and Yadus as their main opponents. The mythical ancient Deva-Asura
war of the Vedas and Puranas involves the Angirasas and Bhrigus
(Brihaspati and Shukra) or the northern and southern rishi families.
Similarly, in Puranic literature it is the Yadus who cause the
most conflicts. The great king Sagara of the Ikshvakus defeated
the Yadus. So did Parshurama, the great avatar of lord Vishnu. The
Ramayana shows a similar north-south battle, with Ravana as a Brahmin
with connections to the Yadus. The northern or Bharata culture ultimately
prevailed making India the land of Bharata and its main ancient
literary record the Vedas, though militarily the Yadus remained
strong throughout history.
The southern culture was probably the older of the two, reflecting
the fact that north India was a desert prior to the ending of the
last Ice Age. The Vedic people probably came originally from the
south, not the northwest, spreading gradually northwards after the
end of the Ice Age which turned the desert of North India into a
fertile region for agriculture. This southern connection is the
basis of the maritime symbolism at the core of Vedic thought, which
reflects an ancient heritage. There was much borrowing and intermixture
between these two groups who shared a common culture. However, we
should not think of the two as some Aryan-Dravidian racial divide
but as a division within the same basic peoples. That is why many
Bhrigus remain prominent in Vedic and post-Vedic literature.
In addition, there was a third or northwest Vedic culture in Punjab
and Afghanistan—that of the Anus and Druhyus who were closely
related to the Puru-Bharatas. This was first part of the northern
kingdom but gradually developed its own identity. It was partly
assimilated by the Bharatas as they became the dominant northern
people. Another portion of it extended north and west outside of
the Indian subcontinent. Its influence was secondary to that of
the northern and southern kingdoms and much of it passed out of
the Indic sphere of civilization altogether. Sometimes this northwest
group of the Anus and Druhyus allied with the southern group of
Turvashas and Yadus against the Bharatas, as in the story of Sudas
and the Battle of the Ten Kings.
However, this northwest Vedic culture was the basis of the Indo-European
cultures that we find in Europe, Central Asia and the Near East.
Much of what western scholars have done to show the origin of the
Indo-Europeans in Central Asia is really a discovery of this western
branch of the Vedic people, not a discovery of the real origins
of Indo-European languages or culture as a whole.
Therefore, we must look to the south and the east to understand
Indic civilization and the Vedas themselves. The connections west
to the Europeans and Iranians were more an outflow, while the southern
connections were more original and enduring. Western scholars, dominated
by a European mindset, only trace Indo-European culture from Europe
and the Middle East to India as its eastern border. They fail to
see that the boundary is only in their minds. We can also trace
linguistic, cultural and religious influences east and south from
India as far as Indonesia, not only during the classical Hindu-Buddhist
period, but also in the Vedic period itself. We must, therefore,
look to the Rig Veda in terms of southern and eastern connections,
recognizing the influences of the greater subcontinent itself which
is part of South Asia.
The Rig Veda as the First Bharata
A more sensitive study of the Rig Veda shows it as a book of great
kings and seers (rajas and purohits). The Vedas reflect great kingdoms
and a sophisticated ancient culture, with the main Vedic rishis
like Vasishta being the purohits or chief priests of great emperors
like Sudas, said to have ruled India from sea to sea in Brahmanical
literature. The Vedas look back to many generations of kings and
seers in their Sarasvati homeland. They are not the kind of primitive
or barbaric poetry that the invasion/migration scenario requires.
Even their glorification of horses and chariots is that of an urban
nobility, such as occurred in the ancient literature of Greece,
Egypt and Mesopotamia, not of primitive invaders.
The Rig Veda lasted because it was the main literature of the subcontinent
and its dominant rishi and royal families. The main kings and rishis
of the Rig Veda are those of the Bharata dynasty that ruled on the
Sarasvati river, from whom India gained its traditional name as
Bharata. Just as the Mahabharata later endured because it was a
natural literature, so did the Rig Veda itself. The Vedic as a royal
literature of the region explains its power to endure. As nomadic
poetry, there is no reason why it could have ever been preserved.
Moving Forwards: Towards a New Spiritual Vision of the Vedas
Our view of history evolves along with civilization. Every generation
interprets history anew. The views about ancient India set forth
in the colonial era are no more the last word then are the colonial
views on any civilization. India is now independent and must rewrite
its own history. This does not mean to ignore the findings of modern
science and archaeology but it also does not mean to ignore the
soul and dharma of the country, its yogic and spiritual vision.
It is no longer possible to reinvent the Aryan Invasion as a migration
or anything else. There is simply no data for it, and the data against
it, like the Sarasvati river work, grows stronger every day.
Yet, a revision of the history of ancient India is only the beginning
of a greater examination. The real work that lies ahead is an encounter
with Vedic literature on a spiritual level. The Vedas contain, at
least in seed form, the great wisdom that we find more clearly articulated
to us in the Vedantic, Yogic, Buddhist, Jain and Sikh traditions
of the region—perhaps even something more. They hold a mantric
power in their teachings that later traditions relied only on a
portion of, like the power of the great Vedic mantra OM itself.
Even modern Hindu teachers like Swami Dayananda of the Arya Samaj,
Sri Aurobindo or Pandurang Shastri Athavale have used the great
Vedic mantras to energize new yogic paths today.
So far, we have just touched the great spiritual power of the Vedas
that can transform our civilization in the light of consciousness.
Modern scholars have served not to help open the doors to that great
Vedic vision, but have worked hard to keep them shut, not even suspecting
the great treasure that lies behind them. In so doing they have
taken the role of the proverbial Vedic Panis, the anti-gods who
hide the light of truth and joy and keep it constricted by greed
and ignorance.
After we have removed the cobwebs of historical misinterpretation
fostered by the Aryan Invasion/Migration theory, we can move directly
into the real Vedic world. The wonders there will astound us. They
will connect us not only to the Divine but also to our inner Self.
They will dwarf our estimation of revelation or of science, helping
to unfold the secrets of the great conscious universe in which we
live and which lives inside of us. The Vedas provide us this deeper
vision of humanity. Only if we reintegrate our present culture with
that of the ancient seers can we truly go forward to the enlightened
world that all sensitive human beings truly wish to create.
May that Vedic vision again come forth for the benefit of all creation.
May the misinterpretations that obscure it disappear like the darkness
at the rising of the Sun!
|
