The Identity of IVC People

Let me discuss briefly about the identity of IVC (Indus Valley Civilization) people.

Are they ‘Dravidians’?

The answer is a vehement ‘NO’.

The ancient Tamil literature does not know about any land to the north in which there was any Tamil civilization nor do they say that the Tamils have migrated from North due to any invasion or other reasons. They claim that the Tamils had their dwellings in a land further south which was destroyed by sea.

There are no huge cities belonging to the 2nd Millennium BCE in the Tamil country. It is certainly impossible to even think that the founders of IVC will give up their culture entirely and turn back to Stone Age living (as evidenced by the existing of Neolithic sites of this period). Also, it has to be noted that there is a continuity of IVC in the northern part of India in the form of Dwaraka (S.R.Rao – 1999), Hastinapura etc. This is not possible if the indigenous civilization was replaced by a foreign culture.

Tamil has no local words for ‘Lion’, ‘Rhinoceros’ etc. If Tamils had lived in North India, they would have their own words for these common animals. The Tamil words are ‘Cingam / Singam’ (derived from ‘simha’) and ‘KAndAmirugam’ (derived from ‘Khadgamriga’).

The next argument put forth is that Indo-Aryans brought horses which were unknown to IVC people. But the Tamil words for horse have local origins. The Tamil words for horse are ‘Kudirai’, ‘Pari’, ‘MA’ etc. Moreover horse figurines have been obtained in Lothal. Faunal remains have been found in Lothal and Surkotada. On the faunal remains from Surkotada, the renowned international authority on horse‑bones, Sandor Bokonyi, Hungary, states: ‘The occurrence of true horse (Equus Caballus L.) was evidenced by the enamel pattern of the upper and lower cheek and teeth and by the size and form of the incisors and phalanges (toe bones).’ In addition to these, Kalibangan and Rupnagar have also yielded faunal remains.

Moreover, no river, city or mountain of North India has any Tamil name. This is important to note because the place names normally exhibit the early language of that place (e.g. ‘Mississippi’ in North America). There is no such place in the world where the invaders have completely changed the names of the rivers, places etc. This is something impossible.


Moreover, the existence of fire altars in IVC (At Kalibangan) shows an Aryan connection. Fire is an integral part of Vedic rituals.

The claims that Tamil words are found in Rg Veda have been proved wrong by Shrikant Talageri (1993).


Are they ‘Austric’?

No, because there is no proof for this hypothesis. The Austric people of India have not built any cities in the 1st Millennium BCE. The Austric languages have borrowed a lot from Indo-Aryan and very few Austric words have been loaned by Indo-Aryan languages. Moreover, the Sanskrit names for Indian plants and animals have local origins and have not been loaned from Austric/Dravidian languages. No place/river in the Indus Valley has any Austric name. Above all, mere hypothesis cannot be considered as a fact and no solid proof has been provided to establish that IVC is Austric.



Are they ‘Indo- European’ (Aryan)?

I know that most people will oppose this vociferously. They may call me as ‘Hindu chauvinist/fundamentalist’ (Marxist parlance) / ‘Brahmin terrorist’ (DK parlance) / ‘Hindu Nationalist’ (Witzel). Now, why is there such an aversion towards the idea itself? People will call IVC as anything but Aryan. Are there any strong archaeological reasons for this opposition? Or is it due to some unassailable evidence found in literature? Or is due to some invincible evidence put forward by Linguistics?

First of all, B.B.Lal has clearly stated that there is no Archaeological evidence for Aryan Invasion/Migration Theories. After a thorough study of the human skeletal remains, Hemphill and his colleagues (1991) have shown that there was a biological continuity right from 4500 BCE to 800 BCE. (Cited by B.B.Lal)

Then Sarasvati is mentioned in the Vedic literature. It is claimed that the Sarasvati of Vedic literature is Helmand of Afghanistan. But the Rg Veda (10.75.5-6) mentions the rivers in an east to west direction and it places Sarasvati between Yamuna and Sutlej. Hence the Sarasvati of the Vedas is the Ghagghar-Hakra of today. It is now known that this river dried up completely by 2000-1900 BCE. Eminent geologists, V. M. K. Puri and B. C. Verma, have demonstrated how the Sarasvati originated from the Himalayan glaciers and how subsequently its channel got blocked because of tectonic movements in the Himalayas, as a result of which the original channel dried up and its water got diverted to the Yamuna. It is due to this natural disaster that IVC centres were abandoned. Therefore, the Vedic literature must predate this period. (Excerpt from B.B.Lal’s paper ‘The Homeland of Indo-European Languages and Culture: Some Thoughts’)

Moreover, the Sarasvati of Rg Veda (7.95.2) flowed from mountains to the sea. Helmand does not flow to the sea. It further confirms our theory that the Vedic land is Haryana (Kurukshetra) and the Vedic period is prior to 2nd Millennium BCE.

There are certain ‘scholars’ who claim that the Vedic people did not know the sea. But this claim is ridiculous. No one can deny the fact that the Vedic Aryans knew the Indus plains. How is it possible that someone knew the Indus plains but not the sea, especially, when the people were great wanderers (as per those who subscribe to AIT/AMT).

The Brahmanas (Panchvimsa Brahmana (XXV.10.16)) do mention about the drying up of Sarasvati. Hence, this is a very solid proof for the fact that IVC people must be Indo-Aryans. (Cited by B.B.Lal)

The astronomical observations mentioned in the Vedic literature also point to an epoch which is very much earlier to 1200 BCE. Shataptha Brahmana refers to Pleiades (Krittika) on the celestial equator. This event occurred around 3000 BCE. (Narahari Achar in EJVS Dec, 1999::Vol. 5(1999), issue 2(December)). This, further, confirms our theory as it pushes back the date of the samhitas to 4th Millennium BCE.

There is no evidence, whatsoever, in the Vedic literature to prove that Aryans came from outside. There is nothing in the Vedas which point to a foreign land.

Finally, Koenraad Elst, Shrikant Talageri and Nicholas Kazanas have proved that there is no strong linguistic evidence for AIT/AMT and they have also shown that OIT(Out of India Theory) does not suffer from any linguistic evidence against it. Linguistics can also be used to propose the OIT.

In conclusion, we may say, IVC people were Indo-Europeans (Aryans).


Appendix:

Horse:

Generally, it is claimed by certain people that horses were unknown to India and that only Aryans brought horses into India. Evidence for horses in IVC has been given above. Still, a supplement is given here:

“Horse bones have been reported as early as the 5th millennium BC at Mahagara and Koldihwa [Sharif and Thapar 1992:151] in Uttar Pradesh. The C-14 dates of these sites were at first doubted, but retests have only established that the earlier dates of 5th millennium BC were correct [Chakrabarti 1999:104-105]. Coming to the Mature Harappan period, horse bones have been found at several sites such as Kuntasi [Dhavalikar 1995: 116-117], Malvan [Allchin and Joshi 1995: 95], Shikarpur [P. K. Thomas et al 1995] etc. They have also been reported conclusively at Hallur in Karnataka, at levels dated securely at 1500-1700 BC. If the Aryans were just entering Baluchistan and NWFP at that time, Karnataka becomes too south a place for horse remains to surface so early!” (David Frawley in ‘Witzel’s Vanishing Ocean – How To Read Vedic Texts Any Way You Like’)

The anatomy of the horse, as described in the Rigveda and other Vedic texts, is different from that of the Central Asian horse (supposedly brought to India by the Indo-Aryan speakers) and in fact similar to some extinct and modern tropical varieties of horses (like the Arabian horse).


Spoked Wheels:

The presence of spoked wheels in Rg Veda is cited as a proof for the AIT/AMT. The argument is that spoked wheels are not found in IVC. But B.B.Lal has disproved this argument. Spoked wheels have been found in Rakhigarhi and Banawali.

Rakhigarhi: Terracotta wheel with painted lines has been found. The painted lines radiating from the central hub and reaching the circumference clearly represent the spokes of the wheel.


Banawali: Terracotta wheels showing the spokes in low relief have been found.

Moreover, Shrikant Talageri, in his reply to Witzel’s review of his book ‘The Rigveda – A Historical Analysis’, has clearly proved that ‘spoked wheels’ are not mentioned in the early books of the Rg Veda.
[(III.4.e) of his reply to Witzel’s review deals with this issue]


Sindhu – Sarasvati Civilization / Indus – Sarasvati Civilization:

A great majority of the IVC/SSC sites have been found on the banks of Sarasvati and hence, it is time to rename the culture as ‘Indus Sarasvati Civilization / Sindhu – Sarasvati Civilization’. Some Marxist historians like Romila Thapar, Irfan Habib etc. oppose this. Such arguments have been dealt with in detail by the supporters of OIT. [E.g. See Kalavai Venkat’s ‘A Critical Review of Romila Thapar’s Early India – From The Origins to 1300 AD]


References:

B.B.Lal - ‘Why Perpetuate Myths? A Fresh Look at Ancient Indian History’
B.B.Lal - ‘The Homeland of Indo-European Languages and Culture: Some Thoughts’
B.N. Narahari Achar - ‘On Exploring the Vedic Sky with Modern Computer Software’ in Electronic Journal of Vedic Studies (Vol. 5 (1999), issue 2 (December))
S.R. Rao - ‘The Lost City of Dwaraka’ (1999, Aditya Prakashan)
Shrikant G. Talageri - ‘The Aryan Invasion Theory A Reappraisal’ (1993, Aditya Prakashan)
David Frawley - ‘Witzel’s Vanishing Ocean – How To Read Vedic Texts Any Way You Like’ (Open Page of The Hindu 25th June 2002).
Kalavai Venkat - ‘A Critical Review of Romila Thapar’s Early India – From The Origins to 1300 AD
Nicholas Kazanas - ‘A New Date For The Rgveda’
Nicholas Kazanas – ‘Sanskrit and Proto-Indo-European’
Koenraad Elst – ‘Linguistic Aspects of Aryan Non-Invasion Theory’
Shrikant G. Talageri’s reply to Witzel’s review of ‘The Rigveda – A Historical Analysis’