The Aryan Debate

Who were the Aryans?

The composers of the Rig Veda describe themselves as ‘arya’, which can be understood as a cultural or
ethnic term. The word literally means kinsman or companion, or it may be etymologically derived from ar
(to cultivate). The terms ‘Indo-European’ and ‘Indo-Aryan’, as used by linguists and historians, have
nothing to do with racial classifications. They are linguistic terms, referring to families of languages and
their speakers. The Indo-Aryans were the speakers of a sub-group of the Indo-Iranian branch of the Indo-
European family of languages. (Upinder Singh, Pg. 186)

The Debate
The solution to the Indo-Aryan problem has been one of the most intellectual projects of the last two
centuries, captivating the imagination and dedication of generations of archaeologists, linguists,
philologists, anthropologists, historians, and all manner of scholarly, and not-so-scholarly, dilettantes.

The publicization in Europe of the Sanskrit language and of its connection with the classical languages of
Europe was the catalyst for the whole post-Enlightenment quest for the Indo-Europeans that continues
unresolved to this day. (Edwin Bryant, The Quest for the Origins of Vedic Culture, Oxford University
Press, 2002, pg. 3)

The questions like who were the Indo-Aryans, where did they come from and what was the relationship
between the Vedic and Harappan cultures, have been debated vigorously and extensively yet there are
no answers.

The Aryan question can be studied under the broad headings:

1. Original language
2. Original homeland
3. Race
4. Markers of the Aryan culture
5. Whether the Harappan culture was Rig Vedic or not

Original Language
The term ‘Aryan’ was especially applied to those who spoke Vedic and Avestan Languages, but gradually
speakers of all Indo-European languages came to be called Aryan. (R. S. Sharma, Advent of the Aryans,
Manohar, 1999, pg. 9)

The Italian Jesuit Filippo Sassetti, a merchant from Florence who was on a trip to Goa for about five years
from 1583, was struck by the similarities between Italian (or its mother language Latin) and Sanskrit of
India. He highlighted that in the language “there are many of our terms, particularly the numbers 6,7,8
and 9, God, snakes and a number of other things.” (Edwin Bryant, Pg. 16)

Then in 1767, James Parsons, physician and fellow of the Royal Society and of the society of Antiquities,
had associated the Indic languages with other European languages. On the basis of the Biblical story
about the re-establishment of the world after the great deluge by Noah’s three sons Shem, Ham and
Japheth and their families, Parsons divided the known human groups into three sections – Semite (Arabs,

1|Page
Jews, etc), Hamite (Egyptian, Cushite, etc.) and Japhetic (Celtic, Greek, Italian, Germanic, Slavic and even
Iranian – Persian, and Indic - Sanskrit, Bengali). Pursuing an indication given in the Bible Parsons realized a
historical truth about the relationship between several European and Asian languages. (Bratindra Nath
Mukherjee, pdf version, pg. 71-72)

In 1786, William Jones gave a speech in the Asiatic Society, Calcutta and he too pointed out the
similarities between Sanskrit and Latin, Greek and other European languages. This speech marked the
beginning of the study of comparative philology in the modern age. Jones's status and reputation ensured
that news of this language connection reverberated through the academic halls of Europe. (Bryant, Pg.
16)

At the beginning of the 19th century, the common sources of the primitive language (Stammsprache)
were named “Indo-European”. The name was proposed by Thomas Young in 1813.

The word Arya got currency in the academic world of Europe in a qualitative sense since the early 19th
century conforming to one of its Indian imports. In 1847, Max Muller used the term in philological
discussions. He labelled Sanskrit and the related languages as Aryan in contradistinction to the
“aboriginal languages of India”. (Bratindra Nath Mukherjee, pdf version, pg. 73)

C. Lassen praised the Aryans as “the most highly organized, the most enterprising and the most creative
among the peoples”. (Bratindra Nath Mukherjee, pdf version, pg. 73) The objective of this kind of
research is to establish the fact that all languages in the Indo-Asian language group originated in Europe
and that the languages and the speakers travelled all the way from Europe to Asia.

The Indo-Europeans did not have their own script and, therefore, their language appears in the
cuneiform script prevalent in Mesopotamia. Words belonging to the western branch of the Indo-
European language occur in Hittite inscriptions in Anatolia from the 19th to 17th centuries BC and show
that the Hittites spoke this language. The extant Hittite texts were written largely between the 16th and
14th centuries BC, but some are copies of the originals dating to the 17th or 16th centuries BC. Linguists
hold that three Indo-European dialects were prevalent in Anatolia. Of these, the dialect called Lucian was
probably current from 2300 BC onwards. The term inar is used in the Hittite language. This clearly
denotes Indra. When the Hittite rule ended in 1100 BC, speakers of one of the three dialects adopted the
hieroglyphic script, but their language continued to be Indo-European. (Looking for the Aryans, Pg. 32)

Between 1887 and 1906, two extremely remarkable incidents took place. One at Tel-el Amarna (Egypt)
and the other at Boghaz-Koi (Turkey). In both these places, significant archaeological discoveries have
been found that point towards the original language of the Aryans. From the archaeological evidence at
Tel-el Amarna, we come to know about some letters which were sent from the Mitanni Kingdom (Indo-
Iranian empire centred in Northern Mesopotamia that flourished from about 1500 to about 1360 BC).
These letters were written in the Akkadian language and had similarities with the Indo-European
language group. The Mitanni treaty of 1380 B.C. between the Hittite king Suppiluliuma and Mattiwaza of
the Mitanni people which characteristically can be considered Indo-Iranian, mentions major Rigvedic
deities (Indra, Mitra, Varuna and the Näsatyas). (Thomas R. Trautmann, The Aryan Debate, Oxford
University Press, 2005, pg. 53; Michael Witzel, The Indo-Aryans of South Asia, Walter de Gruyter, 1995,
pg. 97-98; Edwin Bryant, Pg. 135; Ranabir Chakrabarty, 2021, Pg. 51-52)

2|Page
These names and letters written in the Akkadian language have striking similarities with the letters and
records on the clay plate discovered at Boghaz-Koi. Therefore, it is clear that from the 14th-13th century
BC, there was a language prevalent in the Turkish area which was probably related to the Indo-European
languages.

Similarities between Latin, Greek and Sanskrit

Pitara Ratha Ashya
(Sanskrit) (Sanskrit) (Sanskrit)
Pater Chariot Rot (Latin) Aspa
Father Horse
(Greek) (Iranian)
Pater Roth Ippos
(Latin) (Celtic) (Greek)

A comparative study of the close similarities between the Indo-European languages of the early stage
indicates that at one time their users must have lived close to one another. They could have used a
common Indo-European language, but did not necessarily belong to a common racial stock. On the basis
of a comparative study of words of different languages have similar pronunciations and identical or
similar imports one can prepare a vocabulary of the primitive Indo-European language and with the help
of it one may try to determine the original habitat of its speakers. The method of study is called linguistic
palaeontology. This method was used by O. Schrader to get an idea about the primitive language of the
Indo-Europeans and their culture and habitat. (BNM, 75)

Original Homeland of the Aryans

The original homeland of the Indo-Aryans is a continuing debate among the philologists, linguists,
historians, archaeologists and others. Another view that is propagated mainly by the Indian scholars is
that they were indigenous to the subcontinent. Over the years, many original homelands have been
proposed for the Indo-Aryans which includes Tibet, Afghanistan, Caspian Sea, Black Sea, Lithuania,
Caucasus, Urals, Volga Mountains, Southern Russia, West Asia, Turkey, Finland and India. However, all
these claims are not supported by convincing evidences.

1. View of Upinder Singh

According to Upinder Singh (pg.186), one of the most widely accepted views of the original homeland of
the Indo-Europeans is the plains of Eastern Europe, especially the area north of the Black Sea.

2. View of Gordon Childe

Historian and archaeologist Gordon Childe, suggested “Southern Russian” steppe (now in Ukraine) as
the original homeland on the grounds of archaeological evidence of horse remains that have been found
in the region, which according to Childe indicate the presence of the Indo-European race.

Several old burial mounds (Kurgan) of tall people who had been dolichocephalic with well-built jaws and
sharp nose (Nordic race). [BNM, pg. 75]

3. View of Marija Gimbutas

Marija Gimbutas placed the original homeland in the interior region between the Don and Dnieper River
in Southern Ukraine (4500-3500 BC) and on the banks of River Volga based on the archaeological
evidence from 3500-2500 BC. (BNM, pg. 75)

3|Page
 4. View of Russian scholars - T. V. Gamkrelidze and V. V. Ivanov
They were of the opinion that the original homeland of the speakers of the Indo-European languages was
South Caucasus Valley. This area included Eastern Anatolia and northern Mesopotamia. (R. S. Sharma,
Advent of the Aryans, pg. 29)

5. View of Renfrew
Rather than an aggressive, mounted semi-nomad from the steppes, Renfrew constructs a peaceful,
sedentary agriculturist from Anatolia as his Indo-European par excellence. No two accounts could be
more at odds than Gimbutas's and Renfrew's. For the latter, the spread of the Indo-European languages
was achieved not by Gimbutas's horse-riding warriors but by the gradual spread of farming techniques.
(Bryant, Pg. 40-41)
He also considered Central Asia to be an alternative original home of the Aryans. (R. S. Sharma, Advent
of the Aryans, pg. 30)

6. View of Sir Mortimer Wheeler

The first historian who opined that they Aryans were outsiders was R.E.M Wheeler. He showed that some
of the skeletons at Mohenjo Daro bear the mark of deep injury. He argued that these were caused by an
outside invasion. However, his view was strongly challenged by Indian scholars as well as Western
scholars since an invasion could not be responsible for the end of an entire civilization because it was not
feasible.

According to Upinder Singh, today, most historians have discarded the idea of an Aryan invasion of the
Indian subcontinent in favour of a theory of several waves of Indo-Aryan migrations. (Upinder Singh, Pg.
186)

7. View of Bratindra Nath Mukherjee

Bratindra Nath Mukherjee is also very doubtful about the theory that seemingly situates the original
Homeland on the Northwest by presenting various archaeological evidence. He believes that the horse
was linked with the Aryans as they were of Nomadic race. He raised the question about if the Harappan
people were ignorant about horses. We know that many archaeologists have emphasised that the use of
the horse was known to the Harrapans and sufficient evidence can be gathered in support of the view.
The first phase of excavation of Mohenjo Daro yielded a small miniature of a horse. A similar miniature
has also been unearthed in Lothal. This proves that the use of the horse was known to these cities of
Harappan civilization.

8. View of Michael Witzel

According to Witzel, by the time the Aryans reached the Subcontinent they were already racially mixed:
emerging from the lower Volga region, and passing through Central Asia, and may not have looked very
different from the modern inhabitants of the Indo-Iranian Borderlands. Their genetic impact would have
been negligible and, would have been “lost” in a few generations in the much larger gene pool of the
Indus people. One should not, therefore, be surprised that “Aryan bones” have not been found so far.
Indeed, the Rigveda refers to a certain amount of symbiosis from early on, evidenced by the non-Indo-
Aryan names of Bibu and Balbutha (who is explicitly called a Däsa). (Michael Witzel, 113)

4|Page
 9. View of R. S. Sharma
He writes that more than a dozen theories and views exist about the original Homeland of the Aryans.
These findings are conditioned by time, place and political and intellectual climate. Acc to him, Eastern
Europe and Central Asia, which are geographically linked to India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq,
Anatolia and Greece. In a major portion of this vast territory in ancient times, various communities spoke
Indo-European language. Climatic conditions, environment, birds, animals and trees revealed by the
cognate words rule out the choice of warmer areas, thus confining the search to Eastern Europe and
Central Asia. (Adv, Pg. 9, 12)

10. Indian Scholars

Many have offered their own arguments regarding the original Homeland of the Aryans. Historians like
Gangadhar Jha, D.S. Trivedi, and in more recent times, archaeologist B. B. Lal have started propagating
the theory that the first Homeland of the Aryans was in India, especially the north-west part of the
subcontinent. The literature that holds prime evidence of the existence of the Aryans in the subcontinent
is the Rig Veda. But the Rig Veda does not have any evidence to prove that they migrated to India.
Therefore, these historians were of the view that the Aryans for the aboriginals of India since times
immemorial.

11. View of Ranabir Chakravarti

According to Ranbir Chakravarti, the principal basis for this argument is that the Rig Veda the earliest
literary creation in this entire family of Indo-European languages and that it is an Indian text. These
historians (Gangadhar Jha, DS Trivedi) have pointed to the linguistic commonality between Rig Vedic
vocabulary on the one hand and the Iranian, Greek, Latin and German vocabularies on the other. They
claimed that the Rig Vedic Aryans spread from their original Indic homeland and reached Iran from where
they further spread to Central Asia and Europe. (Ranabir Chakravarty, Pg. 50)

Indus-Saraswati civilization
1. Seminar at the Mythic Society
The first incident that had openly brought forth a politically colour discussion regarding this matter was a
seminar titled "The Aryan Problem", was organised by the Mythic Society in 1991. Here for the first time,
it was advocated that the Harappan civilization was a part of the Aryan civilization and they were not
alien.

2. Indigenous View
Jha and Trivedi further said that the Aryans lived on the banks of River Saraswati and thus, it could be
called the Indus-Saraswati civilisation. However, Wilhelm Rau, a Vedicist and George Erdosy, an
archaeologist, do not identify the Vedic settlements with the Harappan.

3. View of Shereen Ratnagar

The identification of Ghaggar is open to question. There is no proof to say that river Saraswati which has
dried up could be identified with the Ghaggar. The Hakra river and river Ghaggar were themselves
tributaries of Indus.

5|Page
 4. View of R. S Sharma
The river is called Ghaggar in Punjab, Haryana and Rajasthan, and Hakra beyond the Indian border in
Pakistan. Hakra-Ghaggar is a tributary of the Indus.

The Sarasvati can neither be called a major contributor to the Harappan culture nor equated with the
Indus because of the less important sites that it housed. If in the future the Sarasvati sites reveal
Harappan cultural contents that excel those of the well-known Harappan sites outside the Hakra and the
Ghaggar zone the Sarasvati will certainly get far more credit. But even this will not justify the renaming of
the Indus civilisation, for after all the Sarasvati is a tributary of the Indus.

Sharma points out that the fundamentalists want to establish the superiority of the Sarasvati over the
Indus because of communal considerations. In the Harappan context they think that after partition the
Indus belonged to the Muslims and only the Sarasvati belongs to the Hindus. The Saraswati receives
much attention in the Rig Veda but it seems that there are several Saraswatis and the earliest Sarasvati
cannot be identified with the Ghaggar and Hakra. In the Rig Veda, the Sarasvati is considered to be a
great river with perennial water and can be the same as Harakhwati or the Helmand. [Adv, 32-36]

5. View of D.D. Kosambi

He said that during that time, there was no writing, everything was memorized and as they were nomads
the name of the river also changed.

6. View of Ranabir Chakrabarty

The Sarasvati figures in the Rig Veda as a mighty sea going river. It is possibly the same as Sarsuti, which is
however not a mighty stream. The dry bed of the river seems to have connected those of the Ghaggar
and the Hakra, the latter disappearing in the Bahawalpur desert. (Ranabir Chakrabarty, Pg. 56)

7. View of Upinder Singh

The terms ‘Indus–Sarasvati’ or ‘Sindhu–Sarasvati’ civilization are also used by some scholars to describe
the Indus Valley Civilisation. This is because a large number of sites are located on the banks of the
Ghaggar-Hakra river, which is identified by some scholars with the ancient Sarasvati mentioned in the Rig
Veda. However, there are objections to the use of these terms. Since the civilization was not confined to
the valleys of the Indus or Ghaggar-Hakra, the best option is to use the term ‘Harappan’ civilization. This
is based on the archaeological convention of naming a culture after the site where it is first identified.
The use of the term Harappan civilization does not imply that all other sites are identical to Harappa or
that the culture developed first in this place. (Upinder Singh, History of Ancient and Early Medieval
India, Pearson, 2022, Pg. 137-138)

Race
Recent research by Upinder Singh, during the 19th and 20th centuries when the European countries had
colonies in Asia and Africa, they viewed history in terms of the movement and interaction of different
races. Some scholars use the term race loosely in the sense of an ethnic or cultural group and classified
people based on their physical features, e.g. Mongoloid, Negroid, Caucasian etc. These classifications
seem to be objective and scientific on the surface but most of them were racist. These scholars made use
of such pseudo-scientific theories to justify that domination over Asian and African people viewing
themselves as superior and Africans and Asians as inferior. This theory is nothing but a myth. These types

6|Page
of racial classifications that claim one particular group to be superior to the others are totally abandoned
by the scholars. (Upinder Singh, History of Ancient and Early Medieval India, pg. 186)

Markers of Aryan culture

There are four distinctive archaeological phases on the basis of which the expansion of Aryan culture can
be described.

Sredny stog complex (4500-3500 BC)

This culture is there in Ukraine and South Russia in the middle of the Dnieper region. This Complex
shows the domestic horse used for riding and controlled by the use of antler cheek pieces. The people
lived in houses which was slightly sunk in the ground. Thus, we have beginnings of pit dwelling but
surface houses were also in use. (R. S. Sharma, adv, pg. 92)

Yamna Complex (3600-2200 BC)

Its expanse was between the Black Sea in the west and the Volga-Ural region in the East. This Complex
suggest the eastern Migration of Aryans which is known as eastward migration.

It shows semi subterranean houses in settlements and surface structures in burials. Apart from the
increasing presence of the horse riders, they used cheek pieces, we notice wagons and wheels together
with more copper. We also find indications of animal sacrifices in burials. (R. S. Sharma, adv, Pg. 92)

Andronovo Culture (2000 BC onwards)

This culture covered practically the whole of Central Asia. Archaeologically this culture gives considerable
evidence of stock breeding, wide use of horse, practice of cremation, pit dwellings, constructed with
birch and other types of wood, sacrifice altars, and several other elements. (R. S. Sharma, adv, Pg. 92-
93). The Andronovo culture is especially associated with the Iranians (or sometimes Indo-Iranians or Indo-
Aryans) by Soviet archaeologists. (Bryant, Pg. 205)

Bactria Margiana Archaeological Complex

It was prevalent in present-day Turkmenistan, North Afghanistan and south Uzbekistan. In 1900-1500 BC,
it shows the presence of the horse, spoked wheels, soma drink cult, fire cult, and cremation. From here
people migrated to south-eastern Iran, southern Afghanistan, Gandhara and the Quetta regions. The
proto-Aryan community migrated to India and gave rise to a new culture called Gandhara grave culture.
(R. S. Sharma, adv, Pg. 77)

According to R.S. Sharma the main traits of the Aryan culture can be determined on the basis of the
Vedic, Iranian and Greek literary texts and cognate terms found in the Proto-Indo-European languages.
The texts which help us to reconstruct the material and other aspects of the Aryan culture consists of the
Rig Veda, the Zend-Avesta and Homer's Iliad and Odyssey. (Sharma, adv, pg. 11)

According to Linguistic palaeontology, the presence of Indo-European (Germanic) words for snow, wolf,
wheat, barley, meat, and beer in English, and the absence of the same for lion, tiger, elephant, tea,
coffee, cocoa, and tropical rain forest (jungle), suggest that the ancestral form of this language arose in a
temperate climate. [Witzel, pg. 100]

7|Page
Sharma elaborates that the people lived in a temperate climate. They domesticated horses which were
used for riding and driving carts. Some texts specify that the used spoked wheels and fought with bows
and arrows placed in quivers. They lived in a male dominated society. They buried the dead but also
practiced cremation. The cult of fire and Soma prevailed among the speakers of Indo-European languages
in Iran and the Indian subcontinent. However, animal sacrifice and horse sacrifice (Ashvamedha Yagna)
seen to have obtained among all Indo-European communities. They also used the Soma Rasa and lived in
pit dwellings (Gorto). (Sharma, Pg 12)

Horse
The horse is regarded as an indispensable marker of the Aryan culture, and it plays a crucial role in the
life of the early Indo-Europeans. The term asva and its cognates appear in Sanskrit, Avestan, Greek, Latin
and other Indo-European languages. In its various forms the term asva occurs 215 times in the Rig Veda;
no other animal is mentioned so frequently. Various tribes, chariots, several chiefs or warriors
(Pourusaspa, Vistaspa, Gamaspa), were named after the aspa/asva in the ancient texts, particularly in
Vedic and Avestan. The sun is always described as swift-horsed or one possessing swift horses. Much
later, the seven-horse chariot of the sun became widely known in Indian iconography. The speakers of
Indo-Aryan language used the horse and spread it through Western Asia. (13-16)

ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE OF THE HORSE – earliest domesticated horse is found at a considerable distance
from the Indian subcontinent. The largest number of horse-remains appear in the area between the
Dnieper River in the west and the Volga River in the east. Archaeologically the horse first appears in the
south Ural region around 6000 BC. According to Marija Gimbutas, the sheep herders of the Volga steppe
were probably ‘the first to domesticate the horse’ although its remains have are also reported in the Black
Sea region around the sixth millennium BC. Although known around 6000BC in the area between the
Black Sea and the South Urals, it came into general use in Eurasia only around 2000 BC.

The War Chariot

The Indo-Europeans widely used horse-drawn chariots which are well-known to Vedic, Avestan and
Homeric texts. The chariot race prescribed in the vajapeya sacrifice of the later Vedic texts was also a
Greek practice which is fully described by Homer.

Sufficient evidence for the presence of the chariot from 3000 BC onwards appears in the excavations of
south Russia. Chariots with two or three wheels have been found dating to the third millennium BC.
Evidence regarding the presence of horse-drawn chariots appears in the names of the Mitanni rulers
around 1400 BC and later. These names mean ‘having big horses’. [R. S. Sharma, adv, Pg. 17-18]

Spoked Wheels
Spoked wheels appear in Hissar, in Iran and in the north Caucasus area around 2300 BC. War chariots
with spoked wheels appear around 1700 BC in the Sintashta region in the south Ural area adjoining
western Kazakhstan. By 1500 BC spoked wheels appear at several places in Eastern Europe and Western
Asia. There is no evidence for a spoked wheel at Harappa or Mohenjo Daro where all toy-carts found so
far have solid wheels. [R. S. Sharma, Pg. 18-19]

8|Page
Pit dwellings
Since the Aryans were nomads, they did not have any permanent houses. They made temporary houses
on their way as they moved from one place to another with bamboo. The pits left behind by the bamboo
sticks therefore indicate Aryan culture.

The Vedic term ‘Garta’ for pit, lacks cognates in other languages. With the eastward advance of the
Aryans, pit-dwelling appeared in the Ural-Volga region in the 3rd and 4th millennium BC and in the
Andronovo Culture of Central Asia in the 2nd millennium BC. (Adv, Pg. 22)

Birch
A Hungarian homeland of the speakers of Indo-European languages was proposed on the basis of the
‘Birch’ theory by Giles. This theory did not however find many serious takers. (Ranabir Chakravarty,
Exploring Early India, Primus Books, Pg. 50)

Along with underground house the use of birch wood seems to be an Aryan feature. In sharp contrast to
other arboreal terms Bhurja or birch has its cognates in six Indo-European languages. (Adv, Pg. 22)
Evidences of the same can be found in the Eurasian region, Ukraine and Andronovo culture.

Cremation
The practice of cremation is supported by the Vedic, Avestan and Homeric texts. It does not seem to be a
feature of the mature Harappan Culture. The Harrapans practised earth burial, which underwent a
distinct change in their later phase. This is shown by pot burial in Cemetery-H; in some cases, the new
practice also shows burnt bones deposited in urns.

Although it is not clear when horse-users adopted cremation, but around 1500 BC they followed it in both
Europe and Asia including the Chinese part of eastern Central Asia. In the Indian sub-continent, the
earliest use of cremation by horse-users occurs in Swat valley. [Adv, Pg. 23]

Fire cult
The fire cult is considered to be a special trait of the Indo-Aryans or Indo-Iranians. The fire altar (vedi) is
mentioned in the Rig Veda and fire worship is very important in the Avesta. [Adv, Pg. 24]

Animal sacrifice
Animal sacrifice was an important ritual of the Aryan culture. But because of its almost universal
presence among pastoral tribal people, it is difficult to make much of it. The ritual of animal sacrifice may
have evolved because of the need for non-vegetarian food. In the 4 th and 3rd millennium BC graves in the
Ukraine and south Russia provide many examples of animal sacrifice in funeral ceremonies. Similar cases
occur in south Central Asia in the 2nd millennium BC and later. [adv, pg. 25]

The practice of animal sacrifice appears in south Russia and the Ukraine in the Sredny Stog culture (4500
to 3500 BC). [Looking for the Aryans, Pg. 36]

Horse sacrifice
The horse sacrifice was typical of the Indo-Europeans, particularly of the Vedic people. A good deal of
archaeological evidence about the horse sacrifice appears in Eastern, Central, Western and Northern
Europe and also in the Caucasus and Central Asia. Only two hymns are devoted to the horse sacrifice in

9|Page
the tenth mandala of the Rigveda but it is popularised as the Ashvamedha in the later Vedic texts. [adv,
pg. 25-26]

Louis Renou holds that the aśvamedha or horse sacrifice was an Indo-European ritual. Clearly; there is no
evidence of the horse sacrifice in pre-Vedic India. there is no doubt that the horse was sacrificed either
independently or together with other animals in the area between the Black and Caspian Seas. This
practice was perhaps transformed in Vedic times into the aśvamedha which is described elaborately in
later Vedic texts. The same practice may have been turned into the October Equus in Rome. [Looking for
the Aryans, Pg. 38]

The cult of soma

The cult of soma, called haoma in the Avestan language, was confined to the Iranian and Vedic peoples.
The identification of the soma plant has been debated for long. The plant called ephedra found in South
Turkmenistan is considered to be soma. [Pg. 26]

Svastika
Sometimes the Svastika symbol is considered as a mark of Aryanism. It acquired a global importance
when the Nazis adopted it as a symbol of unadulterated Aryanism. According to Mackay, the svastika
symbol originated in Elam (southern region of Iran) earlier than 2000 BC. The symbol seems to have
predated not only pre-Vedic but also pre-Harappan in origin. [Adv, Pg. 27-28]

Burials
The Harappans and the Aryans both buried their dead bodies and in the course of the excavations, we
find cemeteries of two types:

Cemetery H – more primitive. Found in the upper level (bottom-most layer) of the excavation. These
were Urn burials belonging to the Aryans as these were much more primitive than the coffined burials of
the Harappans.

Cemetery R-37 – coffined burials which are relatively new, belonging to the Harappans.

Similarities/Dissimilarities between the Indus Valley Civilisation and

the Rig Vedic Culture
In the words of one of India's leading nationalist historians: "There is one curious fact in regard to the
beginnings of Indian history. For the Indus Valley culture, we have abundant archaeological data, but no
written evidence. For the early Vedic culture, we have abundant written evidence but no archaeological
data" (Majumdar 1959, 6). The archaeological sites of the Indus Valley occupy much of the same
geographic horizons known to the composers of the Vedic hymns. It seems understandable that many
scholars might be tempted to fit the two together. Numerous books and articles have attempted to fit
Vedic descriptions of culture, society, and religion into the ruins of the Indus Valley. (Bryant, Pg. 157)

Some archaeologists like D. S. Trivedi, G. N. Jha and BB Lal, think that the Vedic people created the
Harapan Civilisation. However, such a claim is baseless. Majumdar, Nilakanta Sastri, Bhandarkar and
Raychaudhuri, who believed in the greatness of Indian culture did not consider the Aryans to be the
creators of the Harappan culture. The mature Harappan culture is placed between 2500 and 1700 BC,
while the Vedic people appear on the scene later (Rig Veda – 1500-500BC). Despite indications of contact

10 | P a g e
between the Harappans and the outsiders there is nothing to show that the elements of material culture
prominently associated with the Aryans dominated Harappan civilisation.

It is significant that the Rig Vatic culture was pastoral and horse-centred, while the Harappan culture was
neither horse-centred nor pastoral. Whatever evidence we have for the remains of the horse, which is a
hallmark of Aryan culture, belong to later Harappan times. The culture which has been reconstructed on
the basis of the Avesta and the Rig Veda does not have its counterpart in the Harappan culture.

The Harappan centres show a well-planned city, with grid-pattern town planning and provide strong
evidence of crafts, commerce and store houses. Harappan monuments were built of burnt bricks and the
lanes in the city were covered with them. The Rig Veda on the other hand, does not show any trace of
these elements. Indra, the chief God of the Aryans, is described as a destroyer of forts, i.e., puramdara.
Sometimes pur is understood to mean fortified settlement' but it is also interpreted as Village'. Even if
pur is taken as a fortified settlement, it may possibly refer to a small settlement in later Harappan times.
It may also point to some of the forts which were destroyed in Baluchistan, Afghanistan and the
neighbouring regions of south-Central Asia around 1800 BC. (Looking for the Aryans, pg. 50).

The Rig Vedic culture was mainly pastoral and the Rig Veda has no term for commerce as a specific
activity apart from buying and selling. No terms exist for leasing or hiring, for lending or borrowing. The
Rig Veda does not know of slaves, wage earners or hired labourers engaged in production. And yet all
these features can be expected in an urban culture. Burnt bricks are striking feature of the Harappan
culture but is unknown in the Rig Vedic period. Although the Harappans were familiar with the wheels
wagons there is no proof of the battle chariot before the advent of the Aryans. The spooked wheels
known to Vedic civilization is absent in the mature Harappan phase.

The Rig Vedic society was male dominated with male dominated while Harappa worshipped the mother
cult in religion. (R. S. Sharma, Advent of the Aryans, Pg. 41-45)

That the authors of the Veda clearly relied on pastoralism, with a little agriculture on the side, is shown
not only by the language but also by the contents of their literature. Much of the tedious work of
cultivation (especially of rice which, as we have seen, first appears in the Atharvaveda), was left to the
local population; instead, the authors of the Vedas concentrated their energies on rearing their cattle, an
occupation which they regarded in the manner of the Masai as their own preserve: since God gave the
cows to us, “what is the use of cows with the Kïkata?” [Michael Witzel, Pg. 103-104]

Efforts have been made to read the Harappan script with the help of several non-Indo-European
languages such as Elamite, Sumerian and Egyptian, but nobody has achieved any mentionable success.
However, those who have tried to read the script on the basis of Proto-Dravidian and other non-Indo-
European languages are in a larger number. Clearly there is little possibility of the Harappan script being
written in the Indo-Aryan language. Indo-Aryan languages appear in the north-west of the subcontinent
and then spread towards the east and south. The existing substratum of languages in the Harappan area
shows that the earliest language prevalent in that area is not Indo-Aryan.

There have been traces of Dravidian languages in the Gangetic valley (Malto) and the Indus Valley
(Brahui) that remain to this day, suggesting that Dravidian language was once spoken throughout North
India as suggested by Emeneau and Burrow. This tends to support the hypothesis that a Dravidian
language was the language of the Indus Valley Civilisation. (Trautmann, Intro, Pg. xxviii)

11 | P a g e
The Brahui-speaking belt appears to be the remnant of a larger area in which a Dravidian language was
spoken. At present it is like a small island in the vast Indo-Aryan speaking ocean around it. Recently, it has
been demonstrated that the Dravidian language is linked with the Elamite language.

The linguist, MacAlpin, holds that both the Elamite and the Dravidian languages belong to the same
language family and postulates the presence of a Proto-Elamite-Dravidian language. He throws light on
the pastoral vocabulary of the Proto-Elamite-Dravidian language and shows that with the progress of the
Dravidians in the Indian subcontinent, this vocabulary underwent modification. It is significant that the
Proto- Elamite-Dravidian language has only one type of word for brick. This discovery is of the greatest
importance because bricks were used on a large scale in the Harappan and the other neighbouring urban
civilisations of the Bronze Age. After the end of the Harappan culture, burnt bricks are not found (so far)
in northern India until 300 BC, although mud bricks are probably mentioned in later Vedic literature.

It is argued that fire altars are a trait of the Aryans and they have been found in Lothal and Kalibangan,
but significantly enough, they are reported neither from Harappa nor from Mohenjo-Daro. As shown
earlier, the practice of cremation favoured by the Vedic people did not prevail in the mature Harappan
phase.

Attempts are also made to argue for an Aryan character of the Harappan culture on the basis of the find
of a 'Śiva' image. An image on a seal around which there are several animals has been found. However,
this cannot be regarded as Paśupati Śiva. Similar horned images are also found in early times in Central
Asia and elsewhere. Although the hymns of the Rig Veda are dedicated to numerous gods, Śiva is not
mentioned in any of them.

The excavations of Harappa have exposed many human skeletons. These have been carefully examined
and none of them can be called 'typical Aryan'. These skeletons are placed in three categories. They
suggest that some people came from the Mediterranean area and lived in western Asia. The second
category belonged to the Proto-Australoid stock and their anatomical features are found among the
Dravidian peoples. Proto-Australoids live in Australia and in the islands of the Indian Ocean. The third
category is that of the Mongoloids and only one skeleton of this type has been found. So far, the
Harappan skeletons do not give any evidence of the presence of what is considered to be the Aryan
physical type, which itself is a matter of considerable debate.

It is argued that the later Vedic Aryans created the Harappan culture. However, the later Vedic culture
does not match the Harappan culture. In later Vedic texts the cattle rearing society of the Rig Veda
becomes primarily agricultural.

The people use iron though its use is confined mainly to war and hunting. Iron is clearly attested in the
Vedic texts. Iron is not used in the Harappan culture which employs bronze and stone implements.
Further, the types of crafts, trade and urban life typical of Harappa are clearly lacking in the later Vedic
texts. Almost all the leading scholars of the history of Sanskrit literature hold that the later Vedic period
started after 1000 BC. Since the mature Harappan culture ends around 1600 BC, it cannot be attributed
to the later Vedic people.

Conclusion
The Aryan debate has become more heated, unflattering labels such as ‘Hindu nationalist’, and ‘Marxist
fundamentalist’ or ‘pseudo-secularist’ and ‘so-called champions of Hindutva’ are now thrown about.

12 | P a g e
Although it is not wrong to identify the political movements associated with the Hindutva ideology as
major advocates of the alternative view of the Aryan debate, and to identify some of the leaders of the
standard view as secularists or Marxists, but the truth of ancient history is indifferent to our wishes, our
politics or our social and historical location.

Bearing this in mind, and depending strongly on the archaeological evidences available to us, we can
secure the facts that the bearers of the Aryan Culture were basically kin-based cattle-rearers dominated
by horse-men and war charioteers. They practiced cremation and animal sacrifice, drank soma and
worshipped fire. They lived in pits covered with various types of wood including the birch. Their society
was male-dominated. These traits of the Aryan culture are attested archaeologically in the second
millennium BC in Central Asia.

The Aryans of Central Asia may have been in contact with the Harappan culture towards the end of its
urban phase. But the Harappan culture cannot be called the Aryan or Vedic. Though post-Harappan
cultures in north India may have adopted indigenous elements, they were fundamentally different from
the Harappan culture. Their emergence on the borderlands suggests immigration from outside. This is
supported by indirect references in the Rig Veda whose several books either concentrate on the area
lying west of the Indus or give enough attention to it. Some later Vedic texts and myths clearly speak of
migration from the West.

The Dravidians were not driven out of North India and into South India by the speakers of Sanskrit but
rather, after a long period of bilingualism during which Sanskrit acquired features from Dravidian and the
Dravidian language was lost in most parts of North India in favour of Sanskrit-derived languages.

There is a tendency among adherents of the standard view to abandon the idea of invasion, in the sense
of a rapid military penetration in favour of a slower, more gradual migration of Aryans into India,
accompanied by warfare, to be sure but spread over a long period of time. The decipherment of the
Indus script would provide blaring evidences to the Aryan Debate. The answer, after all is said and done,
is written on the seals.

The idea of an Aryan immigration into India remains a plausible and in places even convincing way of
accounting for some of the presently available evidence. The position that all the Indo-Europeans must
have come from North-west India and its borderlands has so far provided very little positive evidence
with which to recommend itself.

13 | P a g e