Sanskrit origin and spread

Abstract

Many controversies accompany the question of the origin of Sanskrit; my theory is that it was the language of Anatolian priests and had spread by diffusion to northern steppes. Ukraine was a secondary centre, from where it had spread all over the world through violence and conquest, as proved by the research work of David Reich. The research work of David explains the genetic spread of IE into India in two waves, first in 4000 BC and the second wave in 2000BC. At the same time, the hypothesis of Colin Renfrew goes much deeper into 8000BC for the origin of Indo-European languages.

Figure 1: Priest king of IVC -Picture courtesy (Wikipedia).

The Indus priests depicted in the small statue shows more Middle-eastern features than Aryan features. Big lips and big eyes are typical of Middle-eastern race. The naked dancer statue depicts a wholly African looking girl. Thus, Indus priests are looking more of Sumerian origin than that of the Indo-European race.

My decipherment effort of IVC script shows that the Indus script was a mixture of Egyptian hieroglyphics and Vedic ritual ideas. (1) (2) Even though the Vedic ideas are visible, it was a Vedic culture before the steppe people and their horses.

All the elements of Vedic culture are seen in IVC seal inscriptions, except the horse. The genetic study of David Reich confirms the two waves of Aryan immigration. (3) It shows that the first group of IE migration was from Iran around 4000 BC. It is likely they did not know about the horse but spoke some IE language. But the second immigration of IE people was around 2000BC from the steppe is definitely along with the horse, and Rig Veda was an amalgamated version of the religious ideas of both waves of Aryans. The book of Tony Joseph, ‘Early Indians’, also follows the research findings of David Reich. (4)

Neolithic farmers – Cavali Sforza

The first scholar to hypothesize a large-scale Neolithic migration, based on genetic evidence, was Cavalli-Sforza. He discovered many exciting clues about the genetic makeup of Europeans. Although being very genetically homogeneous, several patterns did exist.

The most important discovery was that he found the population spread from Anatolia into Greece, Italy, and France. He attributed this to the spread of agriculture from the Middle East circa 10,000BC to 6,000BC. This pattern represented the most significant (28%) component of total European genetic variation.

Map 1: Map showing the movement direction of megalithic farmers.

Map courtesy -Wikipedia

Such a demographic expansion might have been propagated by the technological developments affecting food availability (in this case), giving the farmers an advantage over the relatively small-sized Palaeolithic population. (5)

Anatolian hypothesis

Colin Renfrew proposes the Anatolian hypothesis, and it postulates that the dispersal of Proto-Indo-Europeans originated in Neolithic Anatolia. The theory suggests that the speakers of the Proto-Indo-European (PIE) lived in Anatolia during the Neolithic era and associates the distribution of ancient Indo-European languages with the expansion during the Neolithic revolution during the 7000 BC and 6000 BC millennia. (6)

Map 2: IE Migration as per Renfrew hypothesis.

Map courtesy -Wikipedia

The Anatolian hypothesis’ chief proponent was Colin Renfrew. He suggested a peaceful Indo-Europeanization of Europe from Anatolia from around 7000 BC with the advance of farming by demic diffusion (“wave of advance”). Accordingly, most of the inhabitants of Neolithic Europe would have spoken Indo-European tongues, and later migrations would at best have replaced Indo-European dialects with other Indo-European dialects. The main strength of the farming hypothesis lies in its linking of the spread of Indo-European languages with an archaeologically known event of the expansion of farming activity. The proliferation of farming activity involved a significant amount of population shifts. (7) (51)

Kurgan hypothesis

The Kurgan hypothesis is a model of early Indo-European, which postulates that the people of Kurgan culture of the Pontic region were the most likely speakers of the reconstructed Proto-Indo-European language. The Kurgan hypothesis was first formulated in the 1950s by Marija Gimbutas.

When it was first proposed in 1956, Marija Gimbutas contribution to the search for Indo-European origins was a pioneering inter-disciplinary synthesis of archaeology and linguistics. The Kurgan model of Indo-European roots identifies the Pontic-Caspian as the Proto-Indo-European (PIE) homeland. A variety of late PIE dialects are assumed to have been spoken across the region. According to this model, the Kurgan culture gradually expanded until it encompassed the entire Pontic-Caspian steppe. (7)

Map 3: IE migration as per the Kurgan hypothesis.

Map courtesy – Wikipedia.

Kurgan culture

Grouping archaeological cultures are complicated; the dividing line between one culture and the next cannot be drawn accurately. Gimbutas defined and introduced the term “Kurgan culture” in 1956, intending to introduce a “broader term” that would combine all the IE cultures in Southern Russia. The model of a “Kurgan culture” postulates cultural similarity between the various cultures of the Copper Age to Early Bronze Age (5th to 3rd millennia BC) Pontic-Caspian steppe to justify the identification as a single archaeological or cultural horizon.

The comparison of cultural similarities of these cultures is a question of archaeology, independent of hypotheses regarding the Proto-Indo-European language. Marija Gimbutas suggested that the 5th millennium “cultural similarities” was the basis of the “Kurgan model”. This model identifies the copper age (5th millennium) Pontic-Caspian steppe as the locus of Proto-Indo-European. (7) Asko Parpola, in his recent book “Roots of Hinduism”, also supports the Steppe origin theory of Indo Europeans. (8) But, in my opinion, it is only a secondary centre of PIE, not the original home PIE. The original home of PIE lies somewhere in Anatolia.

Peaceful vs violent spread

Gimbutas believed that the expansions of the Kurgan culture were a series of inherently hostile military invasions. A new warrior culture imposed itself on the peaceful, matriarchal cultures of “Old Europe”, replacing it with a patriarchal warrior society, a process visible in the appearance of fortified settlements and hillforts and the graves of warrior-chieftains.

But other historians differ and propose that the process of Indo-Europeanization was a cultural, not a physical transformation. It must be understood as a military victory in imposing a new administrative system, language and religion upon the indigenous groups. (7)

In her later life, Gimbutas increasingly emphasized the violent nature of this transition from the Mediterranean cult of the Mother Goddess to a patriarchal society and the worship of the warlike Thundergod (Zeus, Dyaus) to the point of virtually formulating feminist archaeology.

Many scholars who accept the general scenario of Indo-European migrations proposed and maintained that the transition was likely much more gradual and peaceful than suggested by Gimbutas. The movements were not a sudden, concerted military operation but the expansion of disconnected tribes and cultures, spanning many generations. To what degree the indigenous cultures were peacefully amalgamated or violently displaced remains controversial among supporters of the Kurgan hypothesis. (7)

David Reich gives the final verdict on this issue through his research work on IE genetic expansion. His research proves that the IE people from Ukraine were violent, and the spread of IE culture was through violence, as said by Marija Gimbutas. That does not mean the initial spread of IE languages from Anatolia was also violent; it could have been through peaceful means.

Renfrew’s Linguistic Time Depth

While the Kurgan scenario is widely accepted as one of the leading answers to the question of Indo-European origins, it is still a speculative model, not an ideal or standard model. The main alternative suggestion is the theory of Colin Renfrew, postulating an Anatolian and the spread of the Indo-European languages as a result of the proliferation of agriculture.

This belief implies a significantly older age of the Proto-Indo-European language (ca. 9,000 BC as opposed to ca.4000 BC). Some linguists do not support this Renfrew theory on the grounds of glottochronology^[1] (though this method of glottochronology is widely rejected as invalid by mainstream historical linguistics).

This objection of linguists has some basis because the PIE language contained words for devices primarily related to cattle-breeding and horse riding, which were invented around 5000 BC by nomadic tribes in Asian steppes. There are some difficulties in correlating the geographical distribution of the Indo-European branches with the advance of agriculture. (7)

A study in 2003 by Russell Gray and Quentin Atkinson at the University of Auckland, using a computer analysis based upon lexical data, favours an earlier date for Proto-Indo-European than assumed by the Kurgan model, ca. the 7th millennium consistent with Renfrew’s Anatolian homeland theory. Their result is based on the maximum likelihood analysis of Swadesh lists.^[2] The result of the Swadesh list run counter to many popular categorizations of linguistic relations between the different branches within the tree of the Indo-European languages. (7)

Genetic evidence

For the specific problem of the origins of Indo-European languages, Cavalli Sforza has first tried to adjust his data to the traditional model of the warlike invasion theory, claiming that the two data converged, and later has done the same with Renfrew’s model. Nevertheless, he has recently had to surrender to the latest outcome of genetic research, i.e. 80% of the genetic stock of Europeans goes back to the Palaeolithic. Bryan Sykes comments that the Neolithic farmers have been prominent, but they have only contributed about 20% of European genes. The hunters of the Palaeolithic have created the main body of the modern European gene pool. (9)

However, genetic research has not conclusively shown that modern Europeans are primarily the descendants of Palaeolithic hunters. Because modern science is still unable to extract Y-DNA haplogroups from Palaeolithic samples thus, the possibility remains that modern European haplogroups may be the result of later immigration. For more recent research findings, refer to the book of David Reich, ‘Who we are and how we got here.’ (3)

Language–Sanskrit

There is a general feeling that Sanskrit came along with Indo Europeans of Southern Russia. There is a possibility that the Sanskrit language existed along with the other common colloquial language as the language of the elites and priests.

The elite groups had many tactics to maintain their identity and exclusiveness. Some strategies are dress style (like modern-day designer clothes), hairstyle (head bun style for the elite and standard crew cut for regular class), head bun style was the sign of elite category in Egypt, Mesopotamia and India. Similarly, the Indus priest statue also depicts hair bun style, but the ultimate instrument of exclusiveness was language.

In the modern-day example, if a province wants to separate from an existing nation, language is the first ideology used in creating division and dividing people. Similarly, language is a potential weapon in creating a separate, exclusive identity to the elite class. It is possible that Sanskrit existed side by side along with the Dravidian language in Indus valley culture.

The language helps in creating an identity for a section of people. And that distinctiveness brings prosperity to that section of people. They have a vested interest in maintaining the exclusivity of that language, and that is the reason for the creation and survival of the Sanskrit language. In addition to it, there was a need for developing a common international language so that different nations could communicate with each other. Sanskrit fulfilled all these requirements.

Palaeolithic continuity theory and Anatolian hypothesis are in concurrence with the Anatolian origin of Sanskrit. Renfrew’s Anatolian hypothesis also coincides with this view because the PIE source was somewhere in the heart of Anatolia.

Demotic and common script

In Egypt, two forms of scripts existed side by side; one was the language of ordinary people called demotic. Another script was of priestly language called hieratic, closely related to Hieroglyphic. Initially, the demotic or hieroglyphic scripts could not be deciphered. During the Napoleonic war in Egypt, the Rosetta stone was found. Jean-Francois Champollion announced the transliteration of the Egyptian scripts in Paris in 1822

Similar is the case of Sanskrit. It has always been called the language of the gods, given by gods. It was spoken only by priestly class and was understood only by them. But the point is that this elite language simultaneously existed side by side with the other Dravidian languages of the ordinary people. Because of that exclusivity, it is a dying language in India.

The reason for the widespread distribution of the Indo European languages is that, wherever the priestly class moved in, the priestly language also has spread. It is likely that this spread was not by physical conquest but was a peaceful spread by cultural diffusion. Even in a new territory like the southern steppe and subsequent spread, the language might have first entered Southern Russia from Anatolia. But after coming into the south steppe, it took the form of physical domination in the hands of Indo-Europeans of Southern Steppe.

The latter-day genetic spread of M-17 genes should not be considered as the only criteria. The secondary spread of Indo-European languages may be by physical violence, but cultural diffusion began, which does not leave any genetic trace, only cultural evidence. This paper follows the pattern proposed by Renfrew. (10)

The theory of Marija Gimbutas has a flaw in it because it explains only the spread of Kurgan culture after 3000 BC. But the proliferation of agriculturist theory proposed by Cavalli Sforza proved that highly advanced civilization existed in 10,000 BC. These early farmers created the megalithic society of Europe and Asia as well as the central American cultures. And they started moving into all cultivable areas of the entire European continent.

There are many remarkable similarities in various features of these transatlantic Mesoamerican cultures and megalithic cultures of Europe, the building of pyramids, calendars, human sacrifice and others. It looks like that the megalithic culture of Europe had spread to Mesoamerica through the maritime cultures of the European Atlantic Sea Coast, and the contact between these cultures was snapped because of some unforeseen disaster, most probably the eruption of Santorini and ensuing tsunami.

The disaster created by that tsunami was massive. It could have wiped out significant cities of the Mediterranean sea, which resulted in a cultural vacuum and total breakdown of ties with Central America. As a result of that disaster, the contact between these cultures had been entirely forgotten. And only being remembered as Atlantis myth. (10)

Sanskritisation

Sanskritisation is a particular form of cultural assimilation found in India. Indian sociologist M N Srinivas popularised the term to denote the process by which castes placed lower levels in the caste hierarchy seek upward mobility by emulating the rituals and practices of the upper or dominant castes.

Srinivas defined Sanskritisation as a process by which a ‘low’ or middle Hindu caste, or tribal or another group, changes its customs, ritual ideology, and way of life in the direction of a high and frequently ‘twice-born caste. After adopting the new rituals and changes, the lower status communities claimed a top position in the caste hierarchy.

One clear example of Sanskritisation is the adoption, in emulation of the practice of twice-born castes, of vegetarianism by people belonging to the so-called “low castes” who are traditionally not averse to non-vegetarian food. According to M.N. Srinivas, Sanskritisation is the adoption of new customs and habits and exposure to new religious ideas, rituals, and values appearing in Sanskrit literature. In the culmination of this process, the Sanskrit language itself is adopted as a sign of advancement. (11)

Neolithic Age

It is surprising that researchers involved in the PIE origin study discuss the iron age as if the entire human civilization started with the Iron age. They fail to understand the basic fact that man has been living in a civilized way in the old stone age itself. The only achievement of the metal age is rapid development in metal technology which brought in perceptible articles of utility, which we can find in archaeological excavations.

The relevant point to be noted here is that languages had developed in the human being in hunter-gatherer stage itself (about I lakh years ago). Linking archaeological evidence to language sources is futile because there is no proper physical evidence in the form of artefacts. For the Palaeolithic age, the evidence available is only stone tools, which give a relatively weak understanding of the old stone age.

The relevant point to be noted here is that PIE language is the language of priests, and early shamans could have developed this synthetic language in the tribal stage itself while living along with other tribal people. There is no need that only the shamans of the steppe alone could develop the PIE language.

Traditionally considered the last part of the Stone Age or The New Stone Age, the Neolithic age commenced farming, producing the “Neolithic Revolution“. It ended when metal tools became widespread (in the Copper Age or Bronze Age; or, in some geographical regions, in the Iron Age). The Neolithic age is a progression of behavioural and cultural characteristics and changes, including the use of wild and domestic crops and domesticated animals. (12)

The beginning of the Neolithic culture is considered to be in the Levant (Jericho, modern-day West Bank) about 10,200–8800 BC. By 10,200–8800 BC, farming communities arose in the Levant and spread to Asia Minor, North Africa and North Mesopotamia. Mesopotamia is the site of the earliest developments of the Neolithic Revolution from around 10,000 BC. (12)

Lingua Franca

It looks like that the PIE language was the Lingua Franca at the time of the Neolithic and Bronze age itself. Sticking to the argument that the PIE language had spread only during the Iron age is shallow. For example, in modern days, an enormous amount of time, energy and resources are being spent by many people worldwide to learn English because it is the lingua franca of the world today. Similarly, educated people all over the civilized areas of the Neolithic world would have spent a considerable part of their energy in learning the PIE language because it emerged as the lingua franca of the Neolithic age itself. Hence, the argument that the PIE languages were spread by violence is not acceptable.

The latest study on Aryan migration

The newest article on this issue of the Aryan movement is in Economist.com(2018). The article highlights the research work of David Reich of Harvard University. The report says that an accumulating pile of research using DNA from ancient human remains and modern people indicates that, around 2000BC, northwest India was infused with new blood. The newcomers appear to have shared the same roots as that of the people of southern Russia. Strikingly, too, the genetic markers identifying this group seem to be far more prevalent among modern north Indian Brahmins than among other Indians. (13) (3)

Because of the difficulty in collecting ancient DNA, such research has relied on relatively few samples until recently. But an international team of 92 scholars, including David Reich, a geneticist at Harvard University who has pioneered techniques to analyze DNA more quickly and precisely. David Reich has published the data recovered from 362 “ancient individuals” from across South and Central Asia. David has concluded that there was probably an early migration of agriculturalists into India from Iran, around 4000BC. This first wave of PIE migration was followed by a second migration around 2000BC. This second migration happened just before the Vedic Age, accompanied by a sizeable influx from southern Russia (see map). (13) (3)

Figure 2: Aryan migration route as per the latest genetic study.

Map courtesy – Economist.com and David Reich (3)

The Economist article further states that the more comprehensive study not only confirms that “Aryans” probably migrated from the steppes around the Volga and Don rivers to both India and Europe at around the same time. It also shows that their genetic markers later spread southwards across India and are indeed particularly prevalent in “groups of priestly status”. (13) (3)

1. Jeyakumar(hieroglyphics-link). Indus symbols follow the Egyptian hieroglyphics way of writing and ideas. Academia.edu. [Online] 2021. https://www.academia.edu/43722883/Indus_symbols_follow_the_Egyptian_hieroglyphics_way_of_writing_and_ideas.

2. Jeyakumar(Vedic-Yajna). Evidence of Vedic Yajna in Indus seal Inscriptions. Academia.edu. [Online] 2016. https://www.academia.edu/10973385/Evidence_of_Vedic_Yajna_in_Indus_seal_Inscriptions.

3. Reich, David. Who we are and how we got here. New York. : Pantheon books., 2018. 9781101870327.

4. Joseph, Tony. Early Indians. New Delhi. : Juggernaut Books., 2018.

5. Wikipedia(Sfroza, Cavalli). Luigi Luca Cavalli Sforza. Wikipedia.org. [Online] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luigi_Luca_Cavalli-Sforza.

6. Wikipedia(Colin_Renfrew). Colin Renfrew. Wikipedia.org. [Online] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colin_Renfrew.

7. Wikipedia(proto-Indo_Europeans). Proto Indo Europeans. Wikipedia.org. [Online] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Indo-Europeans.

8. Parpola, A. Parpola, A. (2015). The roots of Hinduism the early Aryans and the Indus civilization. New York. : Oxford University Press., 2015.

9. Sykes, B. Blood of the Isles: Exploring the genetic roots of our tribal history. London. : Corgi books., 2007.

10. jeyakumar(book). New Interpretations on Indus Valley civilization. Academia.edu. [Online] 2009. https://www.academia.edu/11101539/New_Interpretations_on_Indus_Valley_civilization.

11. Srinivas, M. N. Religion and society among the Coorgs of South India. Oxford. : Oxford University Press, 1978.

12. Wikipedia(Neolithic). Neolithic. Wikipedia.org. [Online] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neolithic.

13. Economist.com/news/asia/. Aryans did not come to India. They conquered. Economist.com/news/asia. [Online] https://www.economist.com/news/asia/21740048-aryans-did-not-come-india-they-conquered-it-new-study-squelches-treasured-theory-about.

1. . (Glottochronology means the study of language divergence dating). ↑

2. A Swadesh list is one of several lists of vocabulary with underlying meanings, developed by Morris Swadesh in the 50s. Such listings were used in lexicostatistics (quantitative language relatedness assessment) and glottochronology.

   There are two basic versions of the Swadesh list, one with 200 meanings, and the other with 100 meanings. ↑

Rebus principle in IVC scripts

Abstract

Indus scripts are generally written in a logo-graphic way. However, there are few cases of a logo-syllabic way of writing and writing using the rebus principle. In this article, I would like to present the rebus writing I have encountered.

The first case -the Istika ceremony

The above-given symbol indicates ‘three bricks’ tied together with an offering on the top. (Or) it could be a brick-making mould. The symbol does not mean mere ‘brick’; it indicates the Istika ceremony. Istika means ‘brick’. Since the word ‘Istika’ (brick) is similar to the Istika ceremony, the brick symbol has been used. It is a clear-cut case of using the rebus principle in Indus script writing. Read the article, ‘brick symbol indicates istikrta ceremony’, for more information. (1)

Rudra’s name is on one side of the copper tablet, and the other side shows the symbol of Rudra (i.e. crab within a pipal tree). Pictures reference and courtesy –book of Asko Parpola (Page-no. 112)

The second case – Sastha (God)

The word ‘Sastha’(god) is still used in Tamil and Malayalam. God Ayyapan is generally called ‘Sastha’. Wikipedia article on ‘Ayyappan’ says that ‘Sastha’ means ‘teacher’, but Sanskrit dictionaries do not attest to this idea. (2) The word is likely derived from the word ‘zakhastha’, which means ‘branch living God’. (15) This name ‘Zakhstha’ could have been transformed into the word ‘Sastha’ today. The word ‘Zakha’(Branch) had been used for ‘Zakhastha’(branch living god) using the rebus principle because both sound similar.

Bibliography

1. Jeyakumar(Brick_symbol). Brick symbol indicates Istikrta ceremony. Academia.edu. [Online] 2015. https://www.academia.edu/8119582/Brick_symbol_indicates_Istikrta_ceremony.

2. wikipedia(Ayyappan). Ayyappan. wikipedia. [Online] May 2016. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayyappan.

3. spokensanskrit.de. zakhastha. spokensanskrit.de. [Online] May 2016. http://spokensanskrit.de/.

Decline of Indus valley civilization

Abstract

There are many theories explaining the decline of the Indus valley civilization. Climate change is one of the theories. There is an influence of climate; however, the failure of monsoon cannot be the reason for the abandonment of places located on the banks of the perennial river Indus. My theory is that the Indus cities never declined at all. These excavated places like Mohenjo-Daro and Harappa were necropolises. Because these places were graveyards, they naturally gave an impression of a deserted look.

When the British archaeologist Mortimer Wheeler discovered a dozen skeletons in Mohenjo-Daro, he propounded a theory about the final massacre by marauding invaders that ended the Indus civilization. When an Indian scholar told him of Hariyuppa being mentioned in the Rigveda, he took it to mean Harappa. And since a fort was known as pur, and Indira, the Aryan god, was known as Purandhara or destroyer of forts, it all fitted neatly. Yet the past 50 years, and more so the last decade, showed just how wrong Wheeler was. The last massacre theory was his imagination running riot. Far from being snuffed out, there was a brilliant resurgence of Indus culture further south for a while. In India, the sites in Haryana, Punjab and Rajasthan increased from 218 to 853. (1)

Allchin argues that there is a clear indication that the rainfall pattern, which had initially brought fertility, had become adverse in the Sindh region. He theorizes that, given the instability of the Himalayan region, there may have been a massive earthquake that possibly changed the course of rivers such as the Sarasvati and affected many Indus cities. The Indus people then migrated eastward. Lal talks of a steep decline in trade because of problems in Sumer that resulted in the Great Depression and turned many urban centres into ghost cities. (1)

Some of the writings survived in the pottery of the succeeding ages. The weight and decimal system, too, lived on. And so did the bullock-cart technology that the Indus had perfected. Rather than a violent transition, there may have been an orderly interaction with incoming Aryans. Lal even puts the most audacious theory in his recent book: Could the Bronze Age Harappans be Aryans themselves? He says this because of fire worship and the discovery of horse remains and idols in Indus sites. Meadows dismisses it as premature and points out that it was more likely that ass remains were mistaken for a horse’s. Further, the Vedas also show a great antipathy for urban centres. (1)

The decline of IVC was due to monsoon failure

Recently a paper was published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) by a team of scientists from the U.S., U.K., Pakistan, India and Romania. They have argued that long-term changes in monsoon rainfall altered river flow, creating conditions that initially allowed the Harappan civilization to thrive but later to its demise.

Liviu Giosan, a geologist, and colleagues have also reconstructed the landscape of the plain and rivers wherein the long-forgotten IVC had flourished. “Our research provides one of the clearest examples of climate change leading to the collapse of an entire civilization”, he adds.

“After 500 years of flourishing urbanism, the increasing aridification due to a shifting monsoon resulted in a crisis in the agriculture of the hinterland that supported the cities,” remarked Ronojoy Adhikari of the Institute of Mathematical Sciences in Chennai, one of the authors of the paper. This aridification led to large-scale migrations towards moister regions to the north and a decline in the urban system of the Harappan civilization. (2)

Counterpoint

This above-mentioned Monsoon failure theory is a doubtful correlation. Yes, there was a decline in Monsoon activity; there is no objection to that. The problem is that this monsoon decline theory is correlated to the Indus Valley Civilization’s fall, which is wrong.

This “Monsoon Decline” theory is being stretched beyond a limit to accommodate the “IVC Decline” theory. The Indus River is perennial and doesn’t dry up even in harsh summers because of the melting of glaciers. The river Indus supports nearly 18 crores of people in Pakistan even today. Couldn’t it have helped a few thousand people 5000 years back? It looks like there is some misinterpretation here.

Further, the research team proposes that the “Saraswathi River” sites all dried up. That may be true because the Saraswati river turned into a seasonal river in the year around 6000 BC because of tectonic shifts. (3) However, that does not apply to the sites on the Indus river basin. This research team needs fundamental lessons on geography before diving deep into ancient Indian History.

The decline of IVC and El Nino effect

This article on Wikipedia describes the change in El Nino, which affected civilizations worldwide; in that process, we should include the decline of IVC also because the period coincides with the fall of other cultures.

The El Nino theory on IVC decline may not be correct. The most plausible reason is the extended drought that occurred during that period. Such a drought would not have wiped out IVC because the Indus River is a perennial river fed by mountain glaciers. The effect of drought would not have been as catastrophic as it was in Egypt and Mesopotamia.

Around 2200 BC, an aridification event was one of the most severe climatic events of the Holocene period, which impacted many civilizations. It is likely to have caused the collapse of the Old Kingdom in Egypt and the Akkadian Empire in Mesopotamia. Also, the drought may have affected the Indian sub-continent resulting in the decline of the Harappan civilization. (3)

In ca. 2150 BC, the Old Kingdom was hit by a series of shallow Nile floods, instrumental in the sudden collapse of the centralized government in ancient Egypt. A phase of rehabilitation and restoration of order in various provinces followed famines, social disorder, and fragmentation for approximately 40 years. (3)

The aridification of Mesopotamia may have been related to the onset of cooler sea surface temperatures in the North Atlantic (Bond event 3). An elevation-induced capture of winter Mediterranean rainfall feeds the headwaters of the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers.

The Akkadian Empire—which in 2300 B.C. was the first to subsume free societies into a single state—was brought low by a wide-ranging, centuries-long drought. Archaeological evidence documents the widespread abandonment of the agricultural plains of northern Mesopotamia and the dramatic influx of refugees into southern Mesopotamia around 2170 BC. A 180-km-long wall was built across central Mesopotamia to stem nomadic incursions to the south. Around 2150 BC, the Guti, who originally inhabited the Zagros Mountains, defeated the demoralized Akkadian army, took Akkad, and destroyed it around 2115 BC. Widespread agricultural change in the Near East is visible at the end of the 2000 B.C. (3)

The El Niño theory has some relevance because it looks like monsoon rains fed the Sarasvati river basin. A decline in monsoon rains could have affected the Indus civilization towns in the Sarasvati basin (i.e. Rajasthan and Haryana) but not in the Indus river valley plain.

Drying up of Ghaggar- Hakra River

Rajiv Sinha and his team made extensive drilling into the 30-40 m thick sand body in the subsurface beneath a tract of the Ghaggar-Hakra (“Sarasvati”) paleochannel adjacent to the Indus city of Kalibangan. Sinha’s team found that river sediment deposits ceased in this tract of the paleochannel after approximately 14,000 BCE, long before the Indus civilization. (4)

The above research finding shows that different theories relating to the Indus civilization’s decline to drought are incorrect. The Saraswathi River has already dried up in the year 14,000 BC. Attributing drought conditions to the deterioration of IVC is a wrong correlation.

Disease and trauma within collapsing Indus civilization

A study at Harappa suggests that climate, economic and social changes contributed to the disintegration around 2000 BCE. The change is evident in the declining health of the population and the seeming rise of interpersonal violence towards those suffering from visible diseases. (5) The lead author is Gwen Robbins Schug, an Associate Professor of Anthropology at Appalachian State University.

The researchers examined 160 individuals (67% of the total number excavated) from three main burial areas at Harappa: an urban period cemetery (R-37), a post-urban Cemetery (H), and an ossuary (Area G), where it is clear that the prevalence of infection and infectious disease increased through time.

Of the 209 skeletons excavated from Cemetery R-37, 66 (31.6%) were available at AnSI (Anthropological Survey of India) for the present research. Of these 66, 16 were from complete burials, 29 were from fractional burials, and 21 were from multiple burials. Most of the burials were adults, but two young individuals were present over five years of age.

The Harappan skeletons showed evidence of common diseases like sinus infections, leprosy and tuberculosis. Also, there seem to be clear signs of internal and structured violence within what had previously been thought to be a ‘perfect ‘and peaceful society. (5)

The results demonstrated no evidence of violence consistent with invasion or warfare during this critical period that would have supported the general belief of an Aryan Invasion. Instead, most violent trauma seemed to have been directed against women and children of the local population, showing untreated cranial fractures associated with congenital and infectious diseases. (5)

The study of Gwen Robbins is quite informative. First, she was the first researcher to concentrate on the skeletal bones collected from Harappa and Mohenjo-Daro. It is a fact that many skeletal bones were recovered from the sites at Mohenjo Daro and Harappa, and all of them are lying somewhere in the Calcutta Museum. No one bothered about the extensive collection of bones because everyone was busy painting a picture of metropolises for Mohenjo Daro and Harappa. But no one is explaining why there are so many skeletons in the Harappan site. The simple explanation is the identification of Cemetery (H). My answer is that the entire Harappa site was a cemetery, not merely the cemetery (H).

The second observation is that the death of the Indus people was not due to the invasion. Hence, the Aryan invasion theory is sidelined. Death due to disease is the natural explanation. People died of natural causes; this finding supports my necropolises theory. Some skeletons show some violence. Violence is part of any society; the Indus Valley society was not an exemption from it. Only the over-enthusiastic, nationalistic archaeologists have shown a utopian society without violence.

So far, the archaeologists have searched for remains of weapons, arrows and spears, and defence fortifications to determine the peaceful nature of the Indus valley people. How will there be any evidence of war and violence in a graveyard? Only the skeletal remains will tell the truth about violence. None has researched that aspect except Gwen Robbins, which exposes the true nature of IVC society.

Theories of Minoan demise

Santorini is a small island located about 100 km north of the isle of Crete. The Santorini eruption occurred around 1600 BC and is estimated to have had a Volcanic Explosivity Index of 6. Ash fallout in eastern Crete, other islands, and nearby littoral areas of the Aegean Sea and Eastern Mediterranean Sea have identified this massive volcanic eruption. The enormous explosion of Santorini led to the volcano’s collapse into a submarine caldera, causing tsunamis that destroyed naval installations and settlements along the coast of the Mediterranean sea.

It is theorized that the Santorini eruption and the city’s destruction at Akrotiri provided the basis for or inspired Plato’s account of Atlantis. The blast caused significant climatic changes in the eastern Mediterranean region, the Aegean Sea and much of the Northern Hemisphere. There is also evidence that the explosion caused the failure of crops in China, inspired certain Greek myths, contributed to turmoil in Egypt, and influenced many biblical Exodus stories.

A significant amount of Minoan remains have been found above the Santorini ash layer, implying that the Santorini eruption did not cause the immediate downfall of the Minoans. The Minoans were a sea power and depended on their naval and merchant ships for their livelihood. The Santorini eruption likely caused the destruction of merchant ships on a large scale because of a tsunami, resulting in significant economic hardship for Minoans and probable loss of empire in the long run.

Whether these effects were enough to trigger the downfall of the Minoan civilization is under intense debate. The Mycenaean conquest of the Minoans occurred in the Late Minoan period, not many years after the eruption. Many archaeologists speculate that the eruption induced a crisis in Minoan civilization, which allowed the Mycenaean to conquer them easily.

The relevance of quoting this Minoan decline is that the entire Bronze Age culture collapsed with the Minoan civilization’s fall after the Santorini volcano eruption. The decline in civilization occurred all along with the Mediterranean coastal states. The so-called ‘sea people‘ migrated and destroyed the already destabilized societies. These Harappan towns were the outermost border towns of the bronze age civilization of Europe. There is a possibility that this collapse of the Bronze Age trade could be the reason for the partial decline of the IVC.

These Indus Valley excavation sites look deserted because these places were used as graveyards from time immemorial by various occupants of these lands. These sites have been wrongly identified as Metropolises, whereas they were only Necropolises. This wrong identification is the reason for the confusion surrounding the decline of IVC. There is a possibility that IVC never declined at all.

1. cycleoftime.com/. cycleoftime.com/articles_. http://www.cycleoftime.com. [Online] 2015. http://www.cycleoftime.com/articles_view.php?codArtigo=51 .

2. Gopalraj.N. /monsoon-decline-caused-rise-and-fall-of-harappan-civilisation-say-scientists/article3466772.ece. thehindu.com/sci-tech/science. [Online] http://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/science/monsoon-decline-caused-rise-and-fall-of-harappan-civilisation-say-scientists/article3466772.ece.

3. Aggarwal, Mayank. Upcoming-elections-in-haryana-boost-efforts-to-revive-the-ancient-saraswati-river. India.mongabay.com. [Online] 2019. https://india.mongabay.com/2019/07/upcoming-elections-in-haryana-boost-efforts-to-revive-the-ancient-saraswati-river/.

4. wikipedia(4.2_kiloyear_event). 4.2_kiloyear_event. wikipedia. [Online] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4.2_kiloyear_event.

5. Sinha, Rajiv. /~rsinha/Publication/2012_Geoelctric%20resistivity_QI.pdf. home.iitk.ac.in/. [Online] 2017. http://home.iitk.ac.in/~rsinha/Publication/2012_Geoelctric%20resistivity_QI.pdf.

6. Robbins, Gwen. /disease-and-trauma-within-collapsing. //zamoraprotohistorica.blogspot.in/. [Online] 2017. http://zamoraprotohistorica.blogspot.in/2013/12/disease-and-trauma-within-collapsing.html?m=1.

‘Earliest evidence of Cremation’ in Hindu culture

Indian Archaeologists are casually explaining some structures as ‘Pit dwelling’. Any decent human being will not like to live in a pit, so this interpretation should be carefully analysed.

Farmana Khas, or Daksh Khera, is an archaeological site in the Meham block of Rohtak district in the northern Indian state of Haryana, spread over 18.5 hectares. It is located near the village of Farmana Khas, about 15 kilometres from the Rohtak-Hissar highway and 60 kilometres from Delhi. It is significant mainly for its burial site, with 70 burials of the Mature Harappan period (2500–2000 BC) and relatively recent addition (excavation started during 2006) to Indus Valley Civilisation sites excavated in India. (1)

I see for the first time the word ‘Necropolis’ used for an archaeological excavation site of the Indus valley civilisation. The below-given report of the Indian archaeological society contains the article; unfortunately, the report is not available anywhere on the net. (2)

Vasant Shinde, Toshiki Osada, Akinori Uesugi (eds.), Harappan Necropolis at Farmana in the Ghaggar Basin, Special Report No. 4 of the Indian Archaeological Society (2009)

This report confirms my doubt that all these Indus excavation sites are burial grounds. In this report, the authors have stated that at least part of the excavated site is a ‘Necropolis’.

Figure 1: Location map of Farmana, Picture courtesy (3)

Narender Parmar (3) reports that In Farmana-II, Haryana, he has uncovered ‘pit dwelling’ evidence. Closure scrutiny of the photo shows that it is not the case of a ‘pit dwelling’.

Figure 2: Pit-I showing the diameter is hardly 5 feet.

Picture courtesy (3)

See the above-given figure -2; the circle is hardly 5 feet in diameter; nobody could have lived in such a small pit dwelling. Narender reports that a layer of ash, charcoal and bones was found in this pit. There is a possibility that it was a sacrificial pit, where one thigh of an animal (Leg piece of sacrificed Bull) would be burnt as a burnt offering to gods. The remains of the bone could be that of sacrificed animal (Bull) bone. Otherwise, the second possibility is that it could be a funeral pyre, and the bones could be burnt remains of a cremated dead body. Proper analysis and verification of the bone will yield a good result.

The picture shows some circular discolouration, not clear-cut evidence of ‘Pit-Dwelling’. In the case of the sacrificial fire, it could be for customary ceremonies and related funeral ceremonies. Since this fire circle has been found on a burial mound, It should be assumed that it was a sacrificial fire for a funeral ceremony. In such a case of sacrificial fire, there is no need for 5 feet diameter circle of fire. Only burning a dead body requires 5 feet diameter fire circle. My conclusion is that it is the remnant of a funeral pyre. It is the earliest known recorded evidence of cremation in Hindu culture.

1. wikipedia(Farmana). Farmana. Wikipedia. [Online] 2015. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farmana.

2. Shinde(2Farmana), Vasant. Harappan Necropolis at Farmana in the Ghaggar Basi, Special report No.4 of the Indian Archaeological society. 2009.

3. Parmar(Farmana), Narender. Recent_Discovery_of_the_Pit_Dwelling_complxes_from Farmana. https://www.academia.edu. [Online] january 2015. https://www.academia.edu/8373036/Recent_Discovery_of_the_Pit_Dwelling_complxes_from_Farmana-II_District_Rohtak_Haryana._Itihas_Darpan_18_2_213-222.