The Penguin History of Early India

by Romila Thapar

  The linguistic evidence remains firm. Indo-Aryan is of the Indo-European family of languages and there is a linguistic relationship with some ancient languages of west Asia and Iran, as well as some that took shape in Europe. Indo-Aryan is a cognate of Old Iranian, dating to the second millennium BC, with which it has a close relationship. Indo-Aryan also incorporated elements of Dravidian and Munda, languages known only to the Indian subcontinent. The incorporation increases in the texts composed in locations eastwards into the Ganges Plain. This points to a considerable intermixing of the speakers of these languages.

  The sequence of events seems to have been as follows. The cities of the Indus civilization had declined by the mid-second millennium BC and the economic and administrative system slowly petered out, the emphasis shifting to rural settlements. It was probably around this period that the Indo-Aryan speakers entered the north-west of India from the Indo-Iranian borderlands, migrating in small numbers through the passes in the north-western mountains to settle in northern India. Small-scale migrations have the advantage of not being dramatically disruptive and these could have started even earlier, although the cultural differences would have been registered only after the decline of the Harappan cities. Although archaeological confirmation of textual information is not possible, there are no strikingly large settlements in the area during this period. Textual sources suggest that initial settlements were in the valleys of the north-west and the plains of the Punjab, later followed by some groups moving to the Indo-Gangetic watershed. Such continuous small-scale migrations may have followed earlier pastoral circuits. The search was for pastures and some arable land, as they were mainly a cattle-keeping people. Myths in the Avesta refer to repeated migrations from lands in Iran to the Indus area, explaining these migrations as arising from a pressure on the land through an increase in human and animal numbers. The Rig-Veda suggests the close proximity of other peoples inhabiting the area.

  During this period of the early first millennium the hymns of the Rig-Veda, composed in the previous centuries, were compiled in the form known to us today. The compilation is thought to be later than the composition, which adds to the problems of dating the hymns. Central to this compilation are what have been called the ‘family books’, said to have been among the earliest hymns, attributed to those belonging to the more respected families. They were claimed as inheritance by those who also claimed descent from the eponymous ancestor said to be the author of the book. Among the later commentaries on the Rig-Veda, the best known is that of Sayana, written in the fourteenth century AD and illuminating as a late perspective, but prior to modern analyses.

  The Context of the Rig-Veda

  The aim of this brief summary is to indicate the nature of the evidence from a variety of sources and organize it in a historical order. The diverse textual sources make it difficult to provide a neat reconstruction and there are inevitably loose ends. These are complicated further when attempts are made to correlate this evidence with non-textual sources.

  The earliest dated evidence of a form of Indo-Aryan, which, although not identical to Rig-Vedic Sanskrit is nevertheless close to it, comes not from India but from northern Syria. The evidence is brief and scattered and consists of names and words that are in a form of Indo-Aryan. A treaty between the Hittites and the Mitannis dating to the fourteenth century BC calls upon certain gods as witnesses and among these are Indara/Indra, Mitras(il)/Mitra, Nasatianna/Nasatya, and Uruvanass(il)/Varuna, known to the Rig-Veda and the Avesta. Curiously, there is no reference to the dominant deities of the Rig-Veda – Agni and Soma. A text of a similar date on the training of horses includes some words that are a close variant of Indo-Aryan. The horse and chariot, introduced from central Asia, became common in west Asia in the second millennium BC, suggesting a correlation between the arrival of horses and of Indo-Aryan speakers. The Kassite rulers of Babylon, who seem to have come from the Iranian plateau in the middle of the millennium, also mention gods, a few of whom have close parallels in Sanskrit, such as Surias and Maruttas. The Kassite language was not Indo-European despite some names sounding Indo-Aryan. The Indo-Aryan of west Asia is referred to as Proto-Indo-Aryan to differentiate it from Vedic Sanskrit and to indicate that it appears to be more archaic.

  It would seem that sometime in the second millennium there were people in northern Syria who spoke a language that was Indo-Aryan in form, judging by what is referred to as the Hittite-Mitanni treaty of the fourteenth century BC. It is not clear how this language reached the western end of west Asia when there is no archaeological or linguistic evidence of contact between north India and these areas in this period. One possibility is that the language originated in a region from where Indo-Aryan speakers could have travelled either westwards or to the south-east. This could have been north-eastern Iran, which would explain how people speaking an Indo-European language and using horses and chariots arrived in lands to the west. What is of historical interest is that, although the treaty suggests the military success of these people, Indo-Aryan nevertheless had a precarious presence in Syria and disappeared from this region after a while. Yet in India, where it arrived through migration, its presence came to be firmly established. Conquest, therefore, is not necessarily always the mechanism for the spread of a language. A more advanced technology, control over nodes of power and claims to ritual authority can be far more effective.

  The connections between Iran and north India on the other hand are close. The language of the Avesta and Indo-Aryan were cognates, descended from the same ancestral language. The date of the Avesta – the text of Zoroastrianism – has been controversial, but a mid-second millennium date is now being accepted. The linguistic relationship between the two includes not just words but also concepts. The interchangeability between ‘h’ and ‘s’ is one of the differences, but there is a consistency in this change such as haoma, daha, hepta hindu, Ahura in Avestan, and soma, dasa, sapta sindhu, asura in Rig-Vedic Sanskrit. In terms of religious concepts the attributes of gods are often reversed. Thus Indra is demonic in the Avesta, as are the daevas (devas or gods in Sanskrit) and Ahura/asura emerges as the highest deity. This has led to the theory that originally the Old Iranian and Indo-Aryan speakers were a single group but dissensions led to their splitting up. It was then that the Indo-Aryan speakers living in the Indo-Iranian borderlands and the Haraxvati (Sarasvati) area of Afghanistan gradually migrated to the Indus plain, bringing with them their language, rituals and social customs, to settle as agro-pastoralists in the sapta-sindhu area, as described in the Rig-Veda, later merging with the local population.

  This reconstruction tallies up to a point with the archaeological evidence. If the presence of Indo-Aryan speakers is indicated by the presence of the horse – which was central to both action and ritual in the Rig-Veda – then it dates to the early second millennium in the subcontinent, having been virtually absent in the Mature Harappan period. Some horse bones and terracotta representations of the later period have been found at sites adjoining the borderlands. The paucity of bones and representations points to its being an unfamiliar animal. Other items, small in number, turn up in excavations along the Indo-Iranian borderlands at sites that were entry-points to the Indus plains, which parallel those found in southern Afghanistan and north-eastern Iran. Among these areas is that of the Bactria Margiana Archaeological Complex (BMAC). Terracotta models of horses carrying riders sometimes with beaked faces, pottery recalling that of central Asia and Iran, compartmented seals, bronze dirks and axe-adzes hint at connections. These could be items of gift exchange limited to high-status families, but they suggest more than just accidental coming and going. The trickle of migration may have had its beginnings at this point but gained momentum later.

  Evidence of Proto-Indo-Aryan in Syria has a bearing on the date of the Rig-Veda. If the Indo-Aryan of the Hittite-Mitanni treaty was more archaic than the Sanskrit of the Rig-Veda, the compositions of the latter would date to a period subsequent to the fourteenth century BC. Even if
they were of the same date, the language of the Rig-Veda would not be earlier than the second millennium BC. Such a date would also corroborate its closeness to the language and concepts of the Avesta. The closeness gradually decreases as the location of Vedic Sanskrit shifts into the north Indian Plain. This date would also suit the composition of the Brahmanas as texts interpreting the ritual. The Brahmanas were post-Rig-Vedic, generally dated to the first millennium BC, and revealed familiarity with the western and middle Ganges Plain, referring to migrations into this area.

  Recently, it has been argued that the date of the Rig-Veda should be taken back to Harappan or even pre-Harappan times, and its authors equated with the creators of the Indus civilization. This would support the ‘Aryan’ authors of the Rig-Veda being indigenous to northern India, and also the Indo-Aryan language. By calling it the Indus-Sarasvati or Sarasvati civilization, the Vedic contribution is evoked – even if it is in fact absent.

  This view overlooks the data from linguistics, and does not present an analytical understanding of the archaeological evidence. There are two aspects to this evidence: one is whether the artefacts and monuments of the Harappa culture are described in the Rig-Veda; the other is whether the concepts implicit in organizing the Harappan system of urban settlements find their counterpart in the Rig-Veda. Many scholars have described what they regard as the essential characteristics of Harappan urbanism, which they have found to be absent in the Rig-Veda. Among these may be listed cities with a grid pattern in their town plan, extensive mud-brick platforms as a base for large structures, monumental buildings, complex fortifications, elaborate drainage systems, the use of mud bricks and fired bricks in buildings, granaries or warehouses, a tank for rituals, and remains associated with extensive craft activity related to the manufacturing of copper ingots, etched carnelian beads, the cutting of steatite seals, terracotta female figurines thought to be goddesses, and suchlike.

  The second aspect calls for a conceptual familiarity with the use of these objects and structures. The Rig-Veda lacks a sense of the civic life founded on the functioning of planned and fortified cities. It does not refer to non-kin labour, or even slave labour, or to such labour being organized for building urban structures. There are no references to different facets or items of an exchange system, such as centres of craft production, complex and graded weights and measures, forms of packaging and transportation, or priorities associated with categories of exchange. Rituals are not performed at permanent ritual locations such as water tanks or buildings. Terracotta figurines are alien and the fertility cult meets with strong disapproval. Fire altars as described in the corpus are of a shape and size not easily identifiable at Harappan sites as altars. There is no familiarity from mythology with the notion of an animal such as the unicorn, mythical as it was, nor even its supposed approximation in the rhinoceros, the most frequently depicted animal on the Harappan seals. The animal central to the Rig-Veda, the horse, is absent on Harappan seals. There is no mention of seals or a script in the Rig-Veda. Sculptured representations of the human body seem unknown. The geography of the Rig-Veda is limited to the northerly Indus Plain – the sapta-sindhu area – and is unfamiliar with lower Sind, Kutch and Gujarat, and with the ports and hinterlands along the Persian Gulf that were significant to Harappan maritime trade.

  Societies in the Vedic Corpus

  The Rig-Veda is the earliest section of the Vedic corpus. The composition of the later Vedic corpus – the Sama, Yajur and Atharva Vedas – is generally dated to the first half of the first millennium BC. The Samhita section of each is a collection of hymns and the Brahmanas are exegeses on the ritual. The Upanishads and the Aranyakas, essentially philosophical discourses, also form part of the corpus. The sutra section which is often included in the corpus has three categories of texts: the Grihyasutras, concerned with domestic rituals; the Shrautasutras, concerned with public rituals performed for establishing status; and the Dharmasutras, stating the rules of what was regarded as sacred duty in accordance with caste regulations and social obligations. The latter were probably composed from the middle of the first millennium BC and, as normative texts on social and ritual obligations, had a different purpose from the hymns. There appears to be only a small distance in time between the Rig-Veda and the later Vedas in terms of purpose and content. This would further endorse a date of the second millennium for the former, since the latter are dated to the first millennium.

  The hymns were memorized meticulously and transmitted orally over many centuries before being written. A number of devices were used for memorization and for the correct articulation of the sound, which determined its efficacy – a prime requirement in ritual texts. This also ensured that they would be confined to a small, select group of brahmans, who on the basis of knowing the Vedas claimed superior knowledge, and they alone were allowed to perform the major rituals. The epics were also recited orally to begin with, but they were popular literature and each recitation could result in a modification or addition to the composition. This was a more open transmission. The tighter control over the Vedas related to their position as ritual texts, the preservation of which had to be ensured in as precise a manner as possible.

  The geographical knowledge of the authors of the Rig-Vedic hymns can be ascertained by their reference to various rivers. The Rig-Veda shows greater familiarity with eastern Afghanistan, the Swat Valley, Punjab and the Indo-Gangetic watershed – largely what came to be called the sapta-sindhu region. The Yamuna was referred to as the twin of the Ganges and the Sutlej is associated with the Beas, so neither were tributaries of the Ghaggar-Hakra. Their movement away from the Ghaggar was due to hydraulic changes that have been dated to the start of the second millennium BC. The Rig-Vedic references would therefore be subsequent to this. Climatically, the region was wetter than it is today and forests covered what are now vast plains, although some parts of the Punjab are likely to have been semi-arid and conducive to cattle-rearing. Cultivation during the Harappan period would already have led to some deforestation, and settlements in the Ganges Plain would have required further clearing. The introduction of iron artefacts, in addition to those of copper and bronze, would have assisted in the process. But iron, other than for weapons, does not appear to have been commonly used until about 800 BC.

  There was earlier thought to be a racial difference between the aryas who spoke Indo-Aryan and those whom they met with, whom they called dasas, dasyus and panis. The statement that there were two varnas – the arya-varna and the dasa-varna – was quoted as evidence. Varna literally means colour and this was taken to be skin colour. But, more likely, judging from the references, colour was used as a symbolic classifier to express differences. This is supported by the paucity of specific descriptions of the skin colour of the dasas and many more references to differences of language, ritual, deities and custom. The panis are said to be cattle-lifters and therefore disliked. Interestingly, the Avesta refers to daha and dahyu (the dasa and the dasyu of the Rig-Veda) as meaning other people. The word in the Rig-Veda indicating the flat nose of the dasa has been alternatively read to mean those who have no mouth, that is, do not know the language. Perhaps it would be more viable to argue that the Rig-Veda depicts various societies adhering to different cultural forms, but since the hymns were composed by Aryan speakers it is their society that emerges as dominant. There is both a fear of and contempt for the dasas, whose immense wealth, especially their cattle wealth, made them a source of envy and the subject of hostility. Later, the term dasa came to be used for anyone who was made subordinate or enslaved. But this change of meaning took some centuries and was therefore different from the original connotation of the word. The change in meaning would also be a pointer to the decline of pastoralism since pastoral societies have problems in controlling slaves, given the opportunities for running away when grazing animals. Arya continued to mean a person of status, often speaking an Indo-Aryan language.

  The authors of the Rig-Veda were initially pastoralists, but pract
ised some agriculture. Since pastoral migrants often have close relations with local sedentary communities, the situation would at times have led to confrontations and at other times involved negotiating relationships. Thus some dasa chiefs, for example Shambara, are described as enemies, and raiding the cattle of the wealthy dasas was a justified occupation. Other dasas, such as Bribu and Balbutha, are obviously won over as they are described as patrons of the rituals performed for them by Vedic priests. Possibly some of the pastoral chiefs became the protectors of local agriculturalists, given that the Harappan administration had ceased to exist. This would have given the Indo-Aryan pastoral chiefs considerable authority, which would have ensured the more widespread use of their language. Combined with the claims made for the efficacy of the rituals, this would have added to the prestige of the language. Pastoralists and cultivators have a symbiotic relationship, where cultivators allow the herds to feed on the stubble after the harvest and this manures the fields. They are also linked by exchanges of produce, the more so where pastoralists are carriers of goods for exchange. Some overlap evolves between pastoralists and cultivators that permits the more established pastoral chiefs to claim territories and cultivated land. Other identities would be subordinated to those of status and the control of resources.

  A two-way relationship is expressed in the language change that is reflected in Vedic Sanskrit. Indo-Aryan was introduced and adopted, so evidently those who spoke it or adopted it associated it with some advantage, such as authority, technological change or ritual power. At the same time Vedic Sanskrit itself underwent changes. Linguistic elements from Dra vidian and Austro-Asiatic (for example, Munda) were introduced into Vedic Sanskrit. A period of bilingualism has been suggested when more than one language was used in the communication between various communities. Alternatively, the non-Indo-Aryan languages could have been substratum languages, elements from which were absorbed into Indo-Aryan. The Vedic corpus is the statement of the dominant group, but this does not preclude the presence of others. These linguistic elements are apparent in Indo-Aryan but are not noticed in cognate languages such as Old Iranian.