by Roshen Dalal
There are different theories on the origin of the BMAC. According to one theory it was founded in Margiana (Turkmenistan) by people of the late Namazga V culture of the same region. From here, it spread to the Gurgan region of north-east Iran (represented by the site of Hissar IIIc) and farther south to Kerman (Shadad), Seistan, and east Balochistan. Another theory holds that Namazga Pd IV and V were the results of a population movement from north-west Iran. One more theory is that there were two routes, one from Tepe Hissar (Iran) along the Kopet Dagh foothills to Margiana, and another via a southern route to Bactria. This connected Tepe Hissar with the Elamite culture and moved through Shahr-i-Sukhteh to Bactria. An analysis of bones from the graves supports this theory.
Yet another possibility is a movement from the Indus in the east to Bactria and Margiana.
Settlements of the culture included Namazga, Altyn Tepe, Demarjin, Dashli Oasis, Togolok, Gonur, Kelleli, Sapelli, and Djarkutan.
Togolok 1 and Togolok 21 in Margiana had multi-roomed structures, which were possibly temples. Togolok 21 had a central area of 60 m by 50 m, enclosed by a thick wall and circular towers at each corner. Gonur (Margiana) had a fortified structure, whose surrounding wall had rectangular towers on each corner, and four such towers on each side. Within was a palace and administrative buildings and other structures.
The Dashli culture, north-west of Balkh, is part of the BMAC. Remains of buildings at this site include a mud-brick fort and a large temple complex with a circular building with inner and outer walls, and nine projecting towers. This is considered similar to that found at Arkaim. Nearby is a monumental palace with massive walls and a moat. Not far away are graveyards of the same date.
The BMAC had a number of other monumental buildings. Typical pottery included spouted vessels and others decorated with animals along the rim. There were objects of stone and semiprecious stone including carnelian, turquoise, and lapis lazuli. Metal objects included those of bronze, copper, silver, and gold. There were unique axes, decorated with human and animal figurines, which must have been used for ceremonial purposes. Sculptures of people and animals showed highly developed artwork. Stone, metal, and terracotta were used, combined with coloured or semi-precious stones. There were seals made of copper, bronze, and silver, and amulets of steatite. Cylindrical seals were carved with entire narrative scenes, while amulets depicted snakes, scorpions, eagles, Bactrian camels, and other items. Shells too were used, which must have been brought from the Indian Ocean or the Mediterranean Sea. Wheat and barley were among the crops grown, and irrigation was practised. No horse bones have been found at the BMAC sites but there are indications of horse presence as artefacts include axes with horse heads.
This brief survey indicates that the BMAC, which deserves a better name, was a separate and unique culture. It is not known who the people of this culture were, hence they have been linked to Indo-Iranians, Iranians, or Indo-Aryans. To support these links, early excavations in the BMAC found evidence for the preparation of Soma/haoma with remains of poppy, cannabis, and ephedra. However, later analysis by Dutch paleobotanist C.C. Bakels (2003) has disproved the alleged findings of ephedra.
The BMAC had links with other regions. Crested axes of the BMAC type have been found at Shadad and other sites in eastern and central Iran. A cemetery at Mehrgarh VIII in Balochistan contained a number of BMAC artefacts. BMAC-style sealings, ivory combs, steatite vessels, and pottery have been found in the Arabian Gulf from Umm-al-Nar on the Oman peninsula up the Arabian coast to Falaika island in Kuwait.
The language of the BMAC people is unknown but attempts have been made to reconstruct it.
The German–American indologist Michael Witzel and the Russian-origin specialist in Indo-European studies Alexander Lubotsky say there is a pre-Indo-European substratum in Proto-Indo-Iranian, which can be identified with the original language or languages of BMAC, later replaced by Proto-Indo-Iranian. Based on known langauges, Burushaski has been the proposed language. Words of this suggested BMAC language have been found in the Vedas. However, the French linguist G.J. Pinault finds BMAC words in Tocharian.
Parpola relates the BMAC to Dasa forts, conquered by the Rig Vedic Aryans. He connects the dasa with the daha mentioned in Younger Avestan texts and known from Persian and Greek accounts. These accounts indicate that the daha lived in the region circa 500 BCE. Parpola says that the BMAC was ruled by an early branch of Indo-Aryan speakers coming from the Andronovo culture. Later, another wave of Indo-Aryan migrants connected with the Rig Veda reached the region. Archaeologically, they were connected with the Bishkent culture (1700–1500 BCE) and the Yaz I culture (1500–1000 BCE). A different branch reached Mittani. This, according to him, ‘postdates the Rig Vedic takeover of the dasas, as it includes Indra and Varuna, and Varuna was a god of the dasas’. The Rig Vedic people migrated into India towards the end of the BMAC circa 1700 BCE and, at the time of the early Gandhara grave culture, Ghaligai IV in Swat. According to him, finds at Mehrgarh, Sibri, Nausharo, and Quetta confirm the movement from the BMAC area into Balochistan (Pakistan). This theory has been challenged by several archaeologists, including B.B. Lal and V.I. Sarianidi.
Staal, as we saw earlier, felt that from the Andronovo culture, the Indo-Aryans reached Xinjiang. He traces their route to India from Xinjiang along the Amu Darya. They met inhabitants of, or passed through, the BMAC. He does not identify the BMAC with the Indo-Aryans but notes that Parpola found about three hundred and forty camp sites surrounding almost all known BMAC sites dating between 1550–1350 BCE. According to him, these may have been settlements of Indo-Aryan speakers who could not easily enter the BMAC forts. They then proceeded in two directions. One went east, crossed the Khyber Pass, and were the first Indo-Aryan speakers to enter India. Another route to India was via the Bolan Pass but another branch moving west became the Mittani.
The Russian archaeologist V.I. Sarianidi connected the BMAC with the Aegean and Anatolia, and saw Anatolia as the Indo-Iranian homeland, and Bactria as the homeland of Zoroastrianism.
According to another theory, cranial analysis from the BMAC cemeteries of Sapalli and Djarkutan indicates a population migrating from north-west Iran, and does not indicate any migration southwards towards Pakistan/India.
In Afghanistan, Shortughai and Mundigak were on trade routes to Indus. A migration from the north is suggested as Shortughai has skulls of Bishkent-type people.
SOUTH-EAST EUROPE
The French archaeologist of Ukranian origin R. Ghirshman placed the Indo-Iranian homeland in south-east Europe, saying their unity ended in the 4th millennium BCE, and Indo-Iranians then migrated to Mesopotamia and Iran. The Iranians reached Iran a little before 1000 BCE. He connected them with various archaeological complexes, including Sialk-A and B, Yaz I, and sites of ancient Dahistan.
OTHER REGIONS
Among other cultures with possible Indo-Iranian connections are the Zaman Baba, Bishkent, and Gandhara grave culture.
Zaman Baba
Zaman Baba is in the Zerafshan delta, close to the Amu Darya in Uzbekistan. The culture is located near lake Zaman Baba, in the dried-up Makhan river west of the Bukhara oasis. It can be dated to the late 3rd to early 2nd millenniums BCE. The agrarian settlement evolved from a local Neolithic culture. However, this culture had elements indicating the influence of the Pontic–Caspian steppe cultures and of those of south Turkmenistan. There was handmade pottery, burials, and items of bronze and semi-precious stones. Wheat and barley were grown, and cows, goats, and sheep were domesticated. Houses had floors slightly below ground level. Burials were in oval pits and catacombs.
Bishkent–Vaksh Culture
This culture, located mainly in Tajikistan, is known from the settlement of Tashguzor and numerous cemeteries in the Bishkent valley on the Kafirnigan river, and the valleys of the Vaksh and Kyzylsu rivers and beyond. There is both burial and cremation. Three phases have been identified: (1) corresponding to the Andronovo–Fedorovo, (2) early Bishkent, and (3) late Bishkent. In
the third phase, there were catacomb burials. Archaeologists have identified Andronovo and Zaman Baba influences as well as BMAC influence. The culture has a large proportion of pottery from the BMAC or of BMAC types. Catacombs are known in both Zaman Baba and the BMAC. There were bones of cattle, donkey, and horse while sheep or goat bones were placed in graves. The Russian archaeologist A.M. Mandelshtam, in his study of the cemeteries, found correspondences with Indo-Aryan practices and felt these were cattle raisers, who were coming from the north-west (Andronovo) in transit to India. Others support this view. Similarities have also been seen with the Swat and Gomal cultures. But it has been pointed out that the Swat valley graves do not have catacombs.
Swat Valley
The Swat Valley, between Peshawar and Chitral, lies on a route from Central Asia to the subcontinent, and from Central Asia to China, through Gilgit. The Ghaligai rock shelter is one of the main sites, dating from 2500 BCE. In this region, what is known as the Gandhara grave culture emerged around 2000 BCE. Graves have been found at Ghaligai and other sites nearby.
There are different types of burials at these sites, including flexed and fractional burials. The site of Katelai has two burials of horses, with their riders. This culture shows both continuity with the earlier period as well as new elements. There are similarities with the BMAC, Bishkent culture, and sites in Iran and Central Asia, as well as with sites in Kashmir. The migration route has been traced through this culture farther into north-west India–Pakistan, and corresponds with the theory of migration from Central Asia.
CULTURAL INTERACTION
Despite the various theories on migration, there are other theories too. The French archaeologist J.F. Jarrige suggests that the entire region of Afghanistan, Iranian Seistan, west Balochistan, and Central Asia were involved in bidirectional exchanges around 2500 BCE. Hence, there were elements of similarity along with the existence of local cultures. Based on the analysis of available human bones, the American anthropologist Brian Hemphill and others suggest that this may be correct and such interactions continued to 1000 BCE and later. There were no great migrations but trade and cultural exchanges, including marriage.
MAIN THEORIES
Thus there are no conclusive results but the main theories regarding the Indo-Iranian homeland and possible migration are as follows:
The Indo-Iranians originated in Anatolia.
The Indo-Iranian languages originated in the South Russian steppes and the speakers of these languages migrated to Iran and India.
The Indo-Iranians originated from some other part of Central Asia.
The Avestan and Indo-Iranian homeland was in Iran, and migration started from here.
The Indo-Iranians belonged to the BMAC and migrated from there.
There was no migration but merely cultural and economic interaction across a vast area.
No single hypothesis correlating linguistic and archaeological evidence has so far been accepted. The picture will become clearer with an analysis of the Vedic material and a look at the theory of an Indo-Iranian homeland within India, in the context of archaeological cultures of India–Pakistan.
Chapter 6
The Rig Veda
In this chapter, we will look at the Rig Veda in greater depth, focusing on its possible date and the habitat and the people it describes.
DATE
As indicated earlier, the date of the text is uncertain and perhaps the most controversial aspect of studies on the Rig Veda. As there is no clear internal evidence for the date, many different suggestions have been put forward, with estimates varying from 11,000 BCE to 1000 BCE. These estimates are based on relative dating of various texts, language, information in the epics and Puranas, astrological information, references within the text to various phenomena, references from other sources including inscriptions and archaeology, as well as its relationship to Indo-European languages. Some have even dated the text millions of years ago, though a date lying within 1500–1000 BCE is the most accepted.
Rig Vedic Sanskrit differs from classical Sanskrit and is clearly of earlier origin, indicating the antiquity of the text. In addition, some words in it are borrowed from other languages. The hymns of the Rig Veda were probably composed over hundreds of years and transmitted orally. At some point of time, probably before 600 BCE, they were arranged in their present form. No early manuscript of the Rig Veda has been found. In fact, the earliest can be dated to around the 14th century CE. From this date onwards, there are numerous manuscripts. Because of the sacred nature of the text, it may have been memorized and written down several times. In ancient days, references indicate that palm leaves were used for writing—but these did not survive.
MAX MüLLER’S THEORY: 1200–1000 BCE
Over the years, the most accepted estimate of the date became the one calculated by Max Müller in 1859, on somewhat arbitrary grounds. He based his theories on the date of the rise of Buddhism in the 6th century BCE. He felt that Buddhism arose as a reaction against Brahmanism and, hence, Vedic literature including the Samhitas, Brahmanas, Aranyakas and main early Upanishads must have existed before this. The Vedangas or Sutras, he believed, must belong to the same period as the early spread of Buddhism; hence he dated them between 600 and 200 BCE. Presuming the Brahmanas to be earlier than this, he placed their date between 800 and 600 BCE, as the long list of teachers mentioned in these would require at least two hundred years. The Samhitas are earlier than the Brahmanas, hence another 200 years, 1000–800 BCE, were added for the composition of the three later Samhitas: Sama, Yajur and Atharva Vedas. As the Rig Veda must be earlier than these, he allowed another 200 years, bringing its composition to between 1200 and 1000 BCE.
Max Müller only suggested these dates, stating that at the latest, the Rig Veda must have been composed by 1000 BCE. He did not believe that these dates were inviolable. In 1889, in his Gifford lectures, he rather prophetically said: ‘Whether the Vedic hymns were composed in 1000, or 1500, or 2000, or 3000 BC, no power on earth will ever determine.’ Yet, somehow, the dates of which he himself was not convinced gained acceptance by others. As Winternitz pointed out, ‘Max Müller’s hypothetical and really purely arbitrary determination of the Vedic epochs in the course of years, received more and more the dignity and character of a scientifically proved fact, without any new arguments or actual proofs being added.’
Winternitz actually disagreed with Max Müller, and said there was nothing against the assumption that Vedic literature was at least as old as the 3rd millennium BCE. The 19th-century German scholar Albrecht Weber also felt that the Rig Veda must be earlier than Max Müller’s postulated date.
DATES BASED ON ASTRONOMICAL CALCULATIONS
Two early scholars, H. Jacobi in Bonn and B.G. Tilak in India, independently placed the Vedic texts between 6000 and 3000 BCE, using astronomical data. They calculated that in the time of the Brahmanas, the vernal equinox was in the Pleiades (Krittika), which began the nakshatra series. The date for this would be around 2500 BCE. Vedic texts refer to an earlier calendar, when the vernal equinox was in Orion (Mrigashiras), dated around 4500 BCE. Tilak placed some Vedic texts around 6000 BCE.
He felt that the Vedic hymns were composed around 4500 BCE and the Brahmanas in about 2500 BCE. Jacobi placed the Rig Veda towards the latter half of the period 4500–2500 BCE. The Grihya Sutras refer to Dhruva, the polestar. Dhruva, meaning ‘the constant one’, is mentioned in a marriage custom, where the bridegroom points this star out to the bride, asking her to be constant like Dhruva. It thus refers to a time when a ‘constant’ bright star could be seen in the sky. Over time, the position of the celestial equator and the North Pole change, hence the Pole star of the northern hemisphere today, Alpha of the Little Bear, was not the same 2000 years ago. In 2780 BCE, Alpha Draconis was the polestar, and must have appeared immovable for around five hundred years. As this custom does not appear in the Rig Veda, Jacobi placed the Rig Veda before 3000 BCE.
However, the use of such astronomical references to arri
ve at an authentic date has been challenged. It is said that, in ancient times, the nakshatras were related to the moon and not the sun, and the vernal equinoxes were unknown. Also the reference to Dhruva may be to some other less bright star.
In more recent times, many others have tried to date the Vedas on the basis of astronomy. Subhash Kak, who put forward his views in The Astronomical Code of the Rig Veda, connects the structure and arrangement of hymns in the Rig Veda with the five layers of the fire altar in Vedic times.
Through various calculations with the numbers of the hymns in each mandala, Kak believed he had discovered information about the distance between the earth and the sun, and the sidereal position and time of planets. On this basis, he dated the arrival of the Indo-Aryans to the 7th millennium BCE, and the composition of the Rig Veda to 4500–2500 BCE. His theories have been questioned, as this arrangement of hymns into mandalas was probably rather late and does not reflect the hymns at their original time of composition. Kim Plofker, an American historian of mathematics, in a critical review, states that Kak believes any number that appears in the text or related to it ‘possessing possible astronomic significance implies that the number was deliberately chosen, in accordance with the Rig Vedic Code by authors fully aware of that significance’. Though Kak’s theories and calculations are interesting, his conclusions seem unlikely. After going into the mathematical aspects of Kak’s arguments, Plofker concludes: ‘Dr Kak has, at best, seriously overinterpreted his data, and founded his sweeping chronological evidence upon a few interesting numerical coincidences, without sufficient regard for either the historical or the mathematical counterarguments.’