The Vedas

by Roshen Dalal

  Both groups of texts provide little idea of their dates. In fact, the Gathas are dated on grounds that they must be approximately of the same date as the Rig Veda. The Rig Veda itself is dated on somewhat arbitrary grounds.

  Here, we will try and date some of the socioeconomic data, and examine in particular the question of the horse. However, it should be pointed out that dates such as when horses were first tamed or ridden, or when copper was first used, are constantly changing based on new discoveries and excavations.

  Both the Rig Veda and the Gathas mention the use of copper. Copper has a history of use that dates back at least ten thousand years. A copper pendant of north Iraq dates to 8700 BCE. Copper smelting sites date back to about 4500 BCE in the Middle East (present-day Egypt, Israel, and Jordan). Copper was known in Iran and India around the same date. Even today, Iran has rich copper deposits.

  Another pointer to the possible date are the domestic animals in the region. How did animals reach the area where they were domesticated? A number of them may have been indigenous and were found in the wild and gradually tamed. Some, both tamed and wild, may have reached the region from different lands. Seasonal animal migrations are known even today. In the past too, animals migrated across continents, both with and without humans. Research shows that when herds of wild animals are domesticated, they gradually diminish in size.

  Cattle, goats, and sheep were domesticated between 10,000 BCE and 7000 BCE in Iran, Afghanistan, and north-west India–Pakistan. Analysis of bone remains suggests that domestication was local.

  In the Gathas, the term ushtra, used also in the name Zarathushtra, is believed to mean ‘camel’, based on Sanskrit usage of the same term. Ushtra is mentioned in the Rig Veda but is not a common term. Camels known today are of two types: the Bactrian (Camelus bactrianus) with two humps, in Central Asia, and the dromedary (Camelus dromedarius) with one hump, in north Africa and the Near East. Dromedaries were probably domesticated along the southern Arabian coast between 3000 BCE and 2500 BCE. A camelid bone, probably that of a wild dromedary, was found at Sihi, a Neolithic site in Yemen, dating to 8000–7000 BCE. Evidence for domesticated Bactrian camels dates to at least 2600 BCE at Shar-i-Sukhteh, Iran, and such evidence has also been found in Afghanistan. A Bactrian camel figurine of the Harappan period was found in Shortughai, Afghanistan. Another such figurine was found at Kalibangan. Dromedary bones have been found from Harappan sites, mainly in Gujarat, but also from Harappa, Mohenjodaro, and Kalibangan, and these can be dated to 2000 BCE or later. Such camels may have reached there through trade.

  Aspa is another term used in the Gathas, signifying ‘horse’. It is the equivalent of the Sanskrit ashva. In the Rig Veda, the word ashva is frequently used though there are also other terms for horse, such as ashu, vajin, and sapti (see Chapter 6 for more).

  Horses are believed to have been hunted in Palaeolithic times and are depicted in paintings dating as early as 30,000 BCE. Horse taming was earlier dated to around 4000 BCE, and is believed to have first taken place in Central Asia. According to some scholars, it could be pushed back to 5500 BCE. Discoveries in Saudi Arabia (Maqar Civilization) suggest an earlier date of 7000 BCE, though more studies are necessary to confirm this. Considering Harappan and even earlier contacts with these regions, horses could have been imported into India. Horse bones have been recorded from some Harappan sites though it has been doubted whether they were bones of the horse or the onager. Horse bones have also been recorded from Mesolithic and Neolithic sites in other parts of India, as pointed out in Chapter 8, and from some Painted Grey Ware (PGW) sites.

  At no early period in north India are horse remains numerous or prolific. Horse burials at Hasanlu and other sites in west Iran are thought to belong to the 10th–9th centuries BCE period. However, in the Gathas, cattle are predominant, not horses or camels, though the latter were probably known. It is not the suffering horse but the suffering cow that appeals to Ahura Mazda for help.

  It should be noted that aspa and ushtra may have had meanings different from horse and camel, just as the Vedic ashva meant both horse as well as knowledge or light. Ushtra in the name of Zarathushtra has also been interpreted as light, derived from the root us.

  One other aspect of ashva is that in the ashvamedha, a horse with thirty-four ribs has been mentioned, whereas the horse generally has thirty-six. There have been numerous discussions and theories on this, including the theory that the Indian horse is different and unique. However, the number thirty-four may have some symbolic significance. In this context, here are some verses of a hymn, from the Yajur Veda, related to animal sacrifices:

  To gods, to sky, the sacrifice has gone! Come riches thence to me!

  To men, to air, the sacrifice has gone! Come riches thence to me!

  To fathers, to earth, the sacrifice has gone! Come riches thence to me!

  Whatever sphere the sacrifice has reached, may wealth come thence to me!

  The threads (sacrificial formulas) that have been spun, the four and thirty, which establish this our

  sacrifice with svadha,

  Of these I join together what is broken. All hail! To gods go the warm milk oblation!

  (Vajasaneyi Samhita, 8.60–61; verses 54–58 contain 34 sacrificial formulas)

  Ratha, the word for ‘chariot’, is common in the Rig. As seen earlier, ratha is thought to be different from anas (cart) but the distinction is not always clear. Sakata was another term for a cart. The wheels of the ratha are referred to as chakra, the rim and felly are known as nemi, the spokes are ara, the nave nabhya, and the body kosha. Some references can again be interpreted in a metaphysical sense. Rathas with one wheel are mentioned too, and possibly referred to the sun. Ara also refer to time periods as in manvantara or the Jain system of cosmography. Chakra, kosha, and nemi also have different and metaphysical connotations. Chakra refers to the wheel of time or to metaphysical centres of energy within the human body, which is also known as kosha.

  Chariots are known from Andronovo burial sites. At least four Sintashta tombs had chariot remains, and this is considered an additional reason for linking them with Indo-Iranians, though neither Iran nor India have early chariot burials. There is a chariot grave at Krivoye Ozero along with a horse. The archaeological culture at Krivoye Ozero, located north of Odessa on the Black Sea, is dated between 2012 BCE and 1990 BCE. Chariot graves are found in China circa 1200 BCE, in Europe from the 8th century BCE and in Iron Age England, dating between 800 BCE and 100 CE.

  However, chariot remains are not found in north India. The earliest chariot remains are from a Megalithic site in peninsular India, dating to 800–400 BCE. A terracotta seal depicting a horse-drawn cart of a slightly earlier period was found at Daimabad in central India. The earliest evidence for chariots in southern Central Asia is from the Achaemenid dynasty. Earlier petroglyphs have ox-drawn chariots. As Staal points out, chariots could not have entered India through the high mountains and narrow passes. He therefore suggests that it was only their idea or concept, which was imported. But the term rathakara, or ‘maker of chariots’, is not mentioned in the Rig Veda. Scholars who have analysed ratha-related terms in this text point out that descriptions do not match those of the two-wheeled chariots of Europe or Central Asia.

  The ass or donkey is another animal mentioned in the Rig Veda. After collecting and analysing donkey and wild ass DNA from across the world, scientific studies conclude that wild asses in north-east Africa are ancestors of all modern donkeys, Equus asinus. By the 4th millennium BCE, the donkey had spread to south-west Asia. In this context, it may be significant that B.B. Lal has pointed out Nubian similarities with Indian megaliths.

  The use of donkeys is believed to signify a transition to a more trade-oriented society, as the donkey had a crucial role in travel and transport. The onager (Equus hermionus), also known as the wild ass, is native to the deserts of Syria, Iran, Pakistan, India, Israel, and Tibet; onager bones have been found in India. However, it is unlikely to have ever have had
domestic use, as it is known to be almost impossible to tame.

  Sheep (Ovis orientalis) were first domesticated circa 8000–7500 BCE in eastern Anatolia, western Iran, Afghanistan, and north-west India–Pakistan. However, early domestic sheep did not have a woolly coat, as they do today. This probably developed through a genetic alteration that took place around 4000–3500 BCE. Hence, references in the Rig Veda that refer to the use of wool would indicate a date of around or after 4000 BCE.

  Another aspect is the wheel (chakra, as earlier), which seems to have been invented around 4000 BCE. The question of spoked wheels in India is another controversial aspect. Staal feels that spoked wheels were depicted only in Mauryan times while others have found evidence of spoked wheels even in Harappan times. In any case, no one is suggesting that the Rig Veda belonged to the Mauryan period, hence if references to spokes and wheels in the Rig Veda are to be taken literally, they must have existed at least by 1000 BCE.

  Using this socio-economic data, we come to an outer date of 4000 BCE for the Rig Veda. There are no two-wheeled chariots of this date discovered in an archaeological context but, as we saw earlier, the Rig Veda does not refer to a single time period. It may have been composed at a time when chariots were used but could simultaneously refer to an earlier period. For instance, most scholars accept that the war described in the Mahabharata possibly took place in a more limited form around 1000 BCE or 1400 BCE, but that the text of the Mahabharata was compiled between 400 BCE and 400 CE. One also has to keep in mind that ratha too had many meanings.

  Next, we try to understand the presence of Indo-Aryan or Indo-Iranian names and/or deities in Anatolia, first in Akkadian times, continuing up to the 8th century BCE.

  How did these names and terms come to be used in this region? There are several different theories. Did these signify a continuity and development from the early Indo-Hittite or PIE, which is believed by some scholars to have existed in the region? Though this may be possible, there are other possibilities too. Let us look at the zone of interaction during the 3rd millennium BCE. The entire region from Mesopotamia and the Arabian Gulf to Central Asia, Afghanistan, Iran, and the Indus region had trade and interaction during this period, both over land and via sea. African millets reach South Asia at this time, possibly by boat. In addition, Mesopotamian records refer to ships reaching there from Dilmun, Magan, and Meluhha. Meluhha is mentioned even earlier but it is an inscription of Sargon of Akkad (2334–2279 BCE), that refers to the three lands. Dilmun is generally identified with Bahrain, Magan with Oman or south-east Iran, and Meluhha with the Indus region. Meluhha is referred to in several inscriptions and texts. Even a translator of the Meluhha language is referred to. The most obvious conclusion on references in Akkadian, and Kassite records, and in the later Mittani inscription, and Assyrian, is that traders of Meluhha and Magan, possibly identified with India and Iran, settled in the region at this time, and stayed on there. This, however, challenges the assumption of migration of Indo-Aryans into India in the 2nd millennium BCE. This migration theory may account for the Mittani references but not for those dated to an earlier time. Another option is that traders and mercenaries regularly travelled between these regions. In any case, references to names similar to those in Sanskrit date to before 2000 BCE in this region, and indicate that the language existed by that time.

  To sum up, we can conclude that the Rig Vedic people were located in the region of north-west India–Pakistan possibly extending into eastern Iran and southern Afghanistan. Detailed analyses of the locational references in the Rig Veda rule out other theories such as the primary location area being in Afghanistan, the Gangetic plain, Rajasthan, central India, or the Deccan, which are among the various suggestions that have been made.

  Though one cannot rule out migration into India, both evidence for this and for a possible date of migration is unclear and uncertain, and is primarily based on linguistic theories. Genetics and palaeoanthropology are among the additional methods that have been used to prove or disprove this. As seen earlier, Kenneth Kennedy’s analyses of skeletons in the north-west found two periods of discontinuity—one between 6000 BCE and 4500 BCE, and the other after 800 BCE. Another pointer is Togau Ware, found at Mehrgarh and several other sites in the region, dated 4300–3800 BCE. Skeletal analyses of sites related to this pottery indicate new types similar to those on the Iranian plateau. However, one cannot come to any definite conclusions based on limited studies of genes or of skeletons. It needs to be reiterated that language dispersion is not necessarily related to ethnicity. New cultural elements and new settlements also appear in the Mature Harappan period, and in the Post or Late Harappan period. But these new elements could be due to internal changes. As S. Cleuziou, the French archaeologist, pointed out, migrationists believe that pottery moves along with people, but this is just a theory that has never been proved.

  Among others, Jim Shaffer and Diane Lichtenstein state that the archaeology of the subcontinent suggests indigenous developments within the region, along with cultural interaction with neighbouring regions. They believe there is a need to reassess the migration/invasion hypothesis in the light of new archaeological data. Other archaeologists confirm that there is no clear evidence from archaeology for migration into India.

  The theory that India was the homeland of the Indo-Europeans and that migration occurred out of India to spread the Indo-European languages across Europe and Central Asia seems unlikely. There are two main versions of this theory. Koenraad Elst feels that PIE originated in north-west India–Pakistan and spread across Central Asia, Europe, and into China. However, in an article titled ‘Linguistic Aspects of the Aryan Non-invasion Theory’, Elst himself says: ‘This chapter will give a sympathizing account of the prima facie arguments in favour of the Out of India Theory of IE expansion. I am not sure that this theory is correct, indeed I will argue that the linguistic body of evidence is inconclusive, but I do believe that the theory deserves a proper hearing.’

  The other version of this theory is based on the work of Johanna Nichols, who proposed a Bactrian–Sogdiana homeland. Nichols, basing herself on linguistic analysis, suggests that this represents ‘a linguistic epicentre’. The OIT (Out of India) theory proponents move this linguistic centre southwards to north-west India–Pakistan but without the detailed linguistic analysis undertaken by Nichols. Most linguists do not favour the OIT theory.

  Apart from the lack of supporting archaeological data or literary records, the theory raises other questions. If PIE spread from India, why did it not also spread to south, central, and east India, and replace the existing languages there? If it could spread right across Europe, replacing earlier European languages, why not across India? If representatives of Indo-European languages could cross the high mountains and passes of the north and north-west towards Central Asia and Europe, why did they not cross the much lower Vindhyas? The concept of the Sanskritization of south India does exist but is assigned to a later period and, even then, it did not result in the total replacement of other languages.

  Regarding theories on the date of the Rig Veda, it would seem that the probable date—not of the text itself but of the period it refers to—could be between 4000 BCE and 1000 BCE.

  At the earlier end of the spectrum, it could belong to the pre-urban phase, possibly reflected in the Kot Diji or Sothi-Siswal culture. The Rig Vedic culture does not reflect the urban Harappan civilization though some scholars have identified aspects of the Mature Harappan civilization in the Rig Veda. One suggestion is that the animals on Harappan seals were totemic clan symbols, which can be identified with Rig Vedic clans. There is no horse on the seals but no cow either or lion, only the tiger; and yet, lions and panthers must have existed in the Harappan region. Thus, many animals that must have been there are not portrayed on the seals. In the same way, the tiger is not mentioned in the Rig Veda but was probably known. If the Rig Vedic people were present in Mature Harappan times, they must have existed as a subculture with local elements. It
may be significant that the Kot Diji culture continued to exist independently of the Mature Harappan culture, and that other local cultures also coexisted. But even if the Rig Vedic people coexisted with the people of the Mature Harappan Civilization, the question remains: who were the latter?

  Alternatively, the period the text refers to belonged exclusively to a Post or Late Harappan phase. This theory fits most of the other socioeconomic criteria but does not explain the absence of references in the Rig Veda to cities, writing, and long distance trade, which should at least have been known in the Post Harappan period, even if all these elements were declining.

  As for the Later Vedic Samhitas, analyses of the places mentioned indicate that their core area was the region of the upper regions of the Sarasvati–Drishadvati rivers extending into the Gangetic plains. Archaeologically, the Later Vedic could be identified with the Late Harappan/ Ochre Colour Pottery (OCP) cultures, or with the even later Painted Grey Ware (PGW) culture. But the PGW has been identified with Mahabharata sites, and the Later Vedic clearly refers to an earlier period. There are no Kauravas and Pandavas in the Later Vedic Samhitas, and even Hastinapura was not known by that name. Hence if the Late Harappan/OCP are Later Vedic, the Rig Vedic period must be earlier. However, it is most unlikely, as suggested by N. Kazanas and endorsed by several others, that the Mature Harappan civilization is represented in the Brahmanas and Sutras.

  Another aspect of the date is the drying up of the Ghaggar–Chautang rivers, which have been identified with the Sarasvati–Drishadvati of the Vedic period. As seen earlier, the disappearance of these rivers into the sands of the desert is mentioned in the Brahmanas but not in the Rig Veda or Later Samhitas. Though geological research throws up various dates for this, archaeology suggests that the rivers had begun to diminish even before the Mature Harappan period, and had certainly dried up substantially by the time of the PGW culture, when sites in the lower courses were located in the old riverbeds.