|
ANALYTIC REVIEW OF THE CHAPTERS
| CHAPTER
|
|
Page
|
|
|
|
| 1. The theory of an invasion of Dravidian India by the Rigvedic Aryans in the 2nd millennium B.C. |
|
1 |
| Its unhealthy effect on North-South relationship today
|
|
1 |
| Were the Rigvedic Aryans really outsiders and invaders? |
|
1 |
| The right attitude and approach
to the problem
|
|
1-2 |
| Four crucial historical
questions to be faced for the correct answer |
|
2-3 |
|
|
|
|
2. Any archaeological evidence? Negative answers from G. R. Dales and Sir
Mortimer Wheeler, the champion of the invasion-hypothesis and of the theory that
the Rigvedic Aryans destroyed the Harappā Culture
|
|
4 |
| The case for Painted Grey Ware (PGW) |
|
5 |
|
India's PGW and Shahi Tump's quite different and chronologically wide apart
|
|
5-6 |
| The argument from "Aryan" pins and axes |
|
6-7 |
|
Walter Fairservis, Jr.'s case for the Gandhara Grave Culture:
archaeological and literary
|
|
7-8 |
|
Everything hinges on the presence of the horse: did the
Harappā Culture (2500-1500 B.C.) know the domesticated
horse?
|
|
8 |
| The Horse bones of Harappān Surkotada |
|
9 |
| The kind of invasion, if at all, by the Gandhara Grave Culture
|
|
9-10 |
|
Archaeological evidence inadequate: what about literary evidence? |
|
10 |
|
Negative answers from Rigvedic study by the very supporters
of the invasion-theory: E. J. Rapson, A.B. Keith, S.K.
Chatterji, B. K. Ghosh |
|
10-12 |
|
The Rigvedic blank in contrast to the Irānians' trAditīon of Airiyānam vaējo (Aryan homeland)
|
|
12-13 |
|
Negative testimony about Aryan invasion from A. H. Dani and
F. Khan
|
|
13 |
| A. L. Basham's plea for "historical geography" a failure
|
|
13-14 |
|
The Puranas' negative pronouncement, confirming the Rigveda's testimony of an inland position looking westward
|
|
14-15 |
| The Rigvedics autochthones for all practical purposes |
|
15-16 |
|
The negative argument from memory of original home by
migrating races
|
|
16-17 |
|
|
|
|
3. Sri Aurobindo's view of the invasion-theory and of the
racial opposition
|
|
18-19 |
Page-136
| Recent study of skeletonic
material from Harappán sites finds a
class unifying Mediterranean and Indo-European types
|
|
19-20 |
|
Harappán population more or less the same as the population now in
the Punjāb and Saurāshtra |
|
20 |
|
Anthropologically, India at present a predominantly dolichocephalic (long-headed) country |
|
21 |
| Veddid, Dravidian, Indo-Aryan |
|
21-22 |
| The evolution of the Dravidians within India |
|
22 |
| Indo-Aryans and Dravidians racially related in India |
|
22-23 |
|
The Dravidians and the several immigrations into peninsular
India
|
|
23-24 |
| A single multi-charactered race in India at all times |
|
24 |
|
Sri Aurobindo's outlook on Aryan-Dravidian difference and
on Sanskrit-Tamil dissimilarity
|
|
24-26 |
|
Scholars' opinion: cultural and non-racial particulars in the
Rigveda
|
|
26 |
|
Sri Aurobindo on old Sanskrit writings as unifying the linguistic
diversities of the world's various Aryan tongues |
|
27-28 |
| Sri Aurobindo on Tamil's affinity with old Sanskrit
|
|
28 |
|
Sri Aurobindo not particular about the labels "Aryan" and
"Dravidian"
|
|
28 |
|
What is important is to recognise one homogeneous race and
culture
|
|
28-29 |
| A feature of Rigvedic Sanskrit which is not in the other Aryan
languages: the cerebral letters |
|
28-29 |
| Several theories about their emergence
|
|
28-29 |
|
R. Swaminatha Aiyar's remarkable revision of current notions
about Tamil and Sanskrit
|
|
29-30 |
| Sri Aurobindo's relationship to and difference from him
|
|
30 |
|
|
|
|
4. The Mitanni documents of the Maryanni clature
|
|
31 |
| Theif Rigvedic affinities |
|
31-32 |
|
Any pointers to a common source of the Iranian and Indo-Aryan languages from the Mitanni documents?
|
|
32-33 |
| Thieme's demonstration of the Rigvedism of the Mitanni treaty |
|
33-35 |
| The Maryann's source on the
borders of india |
|
35 |
| What is earlier: the Rigveda or the Harappá Culture? |
|
36 |
|
|
|
| 5. The argument from the horse: the evidence of Surkotada |
|
37 |
| The argument from iron: Majumdar's judgement, Macdonell's
verdict, Sankalia's dating |
|
37-38 |
|
The three religious cruxes: (1) the worship of the Mother-Goddess, (2) the worship of icons, (3) the worship of the Bull
|
|
38-42 |
Page-137
| The question of Shiva and the Harappā Culture |
|
42-43 |
|
Is Shiva a Dravidian God? - the views of Wilson, Griffith, Sten
Konow, R. Swaminatha Aiyar and Sri Aurobindo |
|
43-46 |
| A fact brought home by Wüst about the three-headed God
|
|
46 |
| Three-headedness in the Rigveda
|
|
46 |
| The discovery of "fire-altars" at Harappān sites |
|
46-47 |
|
|
|
| 6. Only solid wheels in Harappān toy-carts
|
|
48 |
| Spoked circles on stamp-seals, weapons and potsherds
|
|
48-49 |
| The circle an ancient sun-symbol but without inner spokes
|
|
49 |
|
Spoked circles as chariot-wheels in the Mycenaean syllabary of c. 1400
B.C |
|
49 |
| These ideograms pictorial, denoting chariots |
|
50 |
|
Even outside the script, Mycefnaean representations of chariots
with the same spoked circles |
|
50 |
| Logically the Harappān spoked circles must be chariot-wheels
|
|
50 |
| Harappān sign of a man straddling two spoked wheels
|
|
50-51 |
| It resembles Assyrian chariot-drivers painted on pottery
|
|
51-52 |
| Could the "spokes" be wooden supports over solid wheels?
|
|
52-53 |
|
The Harappāns' sufficiently developed metallurgy according to
Basham, Sankalia, Piggott |
|
53-54 |
|
Does the Tell Halaf painted pot of c. 4000 B.C Suggest a spoked chariot-wheel?
|
|
54 |
| No wheeled vehicles before c. 3500 B.C.
|
|
54 |
| No spoked wheels outside Harappān India
|
|
54 |
|
The most logical background a preceding Indian civilization
knowing such wheels
|
|
54 |
| The Rigvedic Civilization fits the role perfectly
|
|
54-55 |
|
Why were the spokes exclusive to the Rigveda and the Harappa Culture?
|
|
55 |
|
|
|
| 7. No pre-Harappān civilization excavated up till 1963
|
|
56 |
| The situation quite changed now
|
|
56 |
|
Three things to be considered in deciding whether Vedic Aryan
traces are present in the pre-Harappān period
|
|
56-57 |
| Not possible to prove even any post-Harappān culture Aryan
|
|
57 |
| Differing values of horse-evidence according to periods |
|
57-58 |
| Horse-finds at Rānā Ghundāī
I |
|
58 |
| Zeuner's criticism invalid |
|
58-59 |
| Horse-figurine at Pertano Ghundai
|
|
59 |
| Equine evidences at Kili Ghul Mohammad
|
|
59 |
| Horse-knowing RG culture below
Harappā and Mohenjo-dāro |
|
59-61 |
|
Archaeological evidence demanded for pre-Harappān Aryan
Vedism
|
|
61 |
Page-138
| The recent extensive proof of a pre-Harappān Civilization |
|
62-63 |
|
This civilization was in the main seat of the Rigveda's composition: the Sarasvati-Drishadvati valley
|
|
62 |
| A proper background created by pre-Harappān Aryan Vedism
|
|
63 |
| Horse-knowing RG culture at all pre-Harappān sites
|
|
63-64 |
|
Uniformity of such a culture must make the pre-Harappān
Civilization "Aryan"
|
|
64 |
|
But pre-Harappān Aryanism could be part Vedic part non-
Vedic
|
|
65 |
| The Rigveda still earlier |
|
65 |
| Sri Aurobindo on Rigvedic antiquity |
|
65 |
| The most probable time of the Rigveda:
3500-3000 B.C |
|
66 |
|
|
|
|
8. Post-Rigvedic colonizing streams from India: the Maryanni, the Kassites
|
|
67 |
| Earlier exploration of various parts of India
|
|
67 |
|
Aryanism existing already outside India in remote antiquity
|
|
68 |
| Skull-evidence, interrelated potteries |
|
68-69 |
|
Horse-bones at Anau, Sialk, Shah Tepe: Zeuner's criticisms
answered
|
|
69-72 |
| Horse-bones at Susa and Mesopotamian sites
|
|
72-73 |
| Horse-bones at Tripolye in the Ukraine
|
|
74 |
|
Belt of Aryanism from Tripolye to Rigvedic India which was
the most advanced part
|
|
74-75 |
|
|
|
| 9. Airiyānam vaējo
in the oxus-Jaxartes plains ? |
|
77 |
| Final origin of the Aryans still a mystery
|
|
77 |
|
Possibly an almost world-wide common Aryan culture in antiquity with perhaps India its centre but not necessarily its pristine foyer
|
|
77-78 |
| Indirect hints in the Rigveda about a very ancient home
|
|
78 |
|
Sri Aurobindo's pointers to the Arctic regions from the Rigvedic Dawn
|
|
78-81 |
|
Sri Aurobindo's comments on the views of Tilak and T.
ParamaŚiva Aiyar |
|
81-82 |
|
Arctic memories in the Rigveda sole clues, if at all, to ultimate
Aryan origins
|
|
82 |
| Perhaps supporting clues in the Avesta
|
|
82-83 |
|
|
|
|
10. The time-gap to be bridged between the Rigveda's age and
that of the Mitanni documents |
|
84 |
| Causes for persistence of archaic language
|
|
84-85 |
|
Explanation of the Maryanni's Rigvedic speech-forms in c1360 B.C.
|
|
85 |
Page-140
| Confirmation from the Vedic words today in the
area between the Hindu Kush and the Punjāb |
|
86 |
|
Explanation of the Maryann's affinity to Rigvedism: persistence of Rigvedic gods in later times
|
|
86 |
|
Example of the Kalash-Kafirs in our own age
|
|
86-87 |
| Original provenance of the Maryanni and
the Kassites |
|
87-88 |
| The case of the Hittites |
|
88-89 |
|
|
|
|
11. Relation between the Achaemenid Inscriptions and the
Avesta
|
|
90 |
| Relation between the Avesta and the Rigveda |
|
90 |
| Relation between modern English and Chaucer |
|
90-91 |
| Relation between Pānini's Sanskrit and the Rigveda
|
|
91 |
|
Different rates of language-change - even between neighbouring countries
|
|
91-92 |
| Winternitz and Woolner on rate of language-change |
|
92-93 |
| Avestan scholars and the linguistic argument
|
|
93 |
|
The Rigvedic language and the Puranic trAditīon of the VedicSakhas
|
|
93-94 |
| No linguistic ground for c. 1500 B.C. for the Rigveda
|
|
94 |
|
|
|
| 12. The Harappān fortified cities and the Rigvedic purah
|
|
95 |
| The "massacre" at Mohenjo-dāro in Sind
|
|
95 |
| Wheeler's clinching argument from the purah
|
|
95-96 |
| Flaw in his argument for the so-called massacre
|
|
96-97 |
| No sign
of attack on Harappā in the Punjāb |
|
97 |
| No such
sign even at Sind's Chanhu-dāro |
|
97-98 |
|
Peaceful overlap and fusion, at Bhagwanpura, of the Harappā
Culture and the people of Painted Grey Ware |
|
98 |
| The question of destruction at Gumla in the north-west
|
|
98-100 |
| Pre-Harappān, Proto-Harappān, Semi-Harappān, Harappān
|
|
101 |
|
Wheeler's warning against an excessive Aryan "preoccupation" |
|
101 |
|
Archaeologist Lai's denial that the "massacre" skeletons at
Mohenjo-dāro all belong to one and the same latest level of occupation
|
|
101 |
|
Physical anthropologist Kennedy's information that the skeletons belong to persons who died because of some water-borne
diseases and malaria rather than a "massacre"
|
|
101-102 |
| No proof of Aryan destruction of the Harappā Culture |
|
102 |
|
If purah means "fortified cities", the Rigvedics cannot be-post Harappān since no Harappān forts were destroyed by "Aryan"
attack |
|
103 |
| Can purah mean "fortified cities"? |
|
104 |
Page-141
| Purah as pens of cows and horses
|
|
104 |
|
What about the magnitude of purah indicated in the Rigveda at
times?
|
|
104-105 |
|
Literal interpretation of these indications rules out the Harappan cities
|
|
105 |
|
Actually, these cities, with a few exceptions, were not laid out
for defence
|
|
105-106 |
|
A clear dilemma |
|
106 |
|
If the Rigvedics cannot be placed in c. 1500 B.C. what is the
alternative?
|
|
106 |
|
|
|
|
|
13. Sri Aurobindo's revolutionary step of totally symbolic
interpretation |
|
107 |
|
Proper background to the highly developed Upanishads required
|
|
107 |
|
A background like the Orphic and Eleusinian Mysteries before
Pythagoras and Plato
|
|
107 |
|
The Rigveda belongs to the oldest Age of Mysteries with inner
and outer meanings
|
|
107 |
|
The Upanishad's forms and symbols and the Brāhmaṇas' substance as pointers to such an age
|
|
108 |
|
Some direct affirmations by the Rigveda of its own spiritual
sense
|
|
108 |
|
Frequent appeal by the Upanishads to the Rigveda's truths |
|
108 |
|
Persistent popular trAditīon of the Rigveda as Mantra |
|
108-109 |
|
Sri Aurobindo's denial of Dasa-Dasyus as human beings |
|
109 |
|
The words anas ("noseless") and kṛiṣṇa-tvāch ("black-skinned") for Dasa-Dasyus
|
|
109 |
|
Macdonell and Keith on Dasa-Dasyus as demons at times |
|
109 |
|
Their argument for Dasa-Dasyus as human beings at other
times
|
|
109-110 |
|
Even Dasa-Dasyus with individualizing names and parentage
are opposed not to men but to the Gods
|
|
110 |
|
Dasa-Dasyus as Asuras |
|
110-111 |
|
Gods also have individualizing names and parents
|
|
111 |
|
Dasyus born of Diti, like the Gods from Aditī, and opposed
both to the Gods and the Gods' followers
|
|
111 |
|
Dasa-Dasyus called "non-men" |
|
111-112 |
|
"Non-men" no mere hyperbole for "inhuman"
|
|
112 |
|
Panis as Dasa-Dasyus |
|
112 |
|
All Dasa-Dasyus characterized as non-worshippers |
|
113 |
|
The true sense of anas and kṛiṣṇa-tvāch
|
|
113 |
|
Macdonell and Keith on another meaning than "noseless" |
|
114 |
|
Dasa-colour and Arya-colour |
|
114 |
Page-142
| A master-clue to the real character of Dasyus
|
|
114-115 |
|
The total situation, according to Sri Aurobindo, deciding Rigvedic exegesis
|
|
115 |
| Earlier and later meanings of "Asura, Raksha, Piśācha"
|
|
115-117 |
| Only one possible objection and Sri Aurobindo's answer
|
|
117 |
|
The Rigveda's specific implication against presence of human
enemies |
|
117 |
| No fight of different races, only co-existence of two cults |
|
118-119 |
| Non-historical nature of the Rigvedic "forts"
|
|
119-120 |
| The forts destroyed only with Mantras, not weapons
|
|
120-121 |
| Even the weapons mentioned are symbolic
|
|
121 |
|
On all counts there could have been no Aryan Rigvedic invasion of India. It is absurd to build on the idea of it an answer to
the problem of Aryan origins
|
|
121 |
|
APPENDIX
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1.
Indologists on Harappā and Hariyūpiyā |
|
125 |
|
Wheeler on the Vrichivants as foes of Indra and on their defeat |
|
125 |
|
The Vrichivants near the Ravi on which Harappā stands |
|
125 |
|
The Rigveda on the relative positions of the Vrichivants and
their Aryan enemies; the latter well to the east of the Indus and
facing westward
|
|
126 |
|
The Vrichivants themselves clearly Aryans in the Rigveda |
|
127 |
|
Even if foes of Indra, they need not be non-Aryans, for even
Aryans who have turned hostile are called animdra
Rigveda |
|
127 |
|
Indra's role in the destruction of the Vrichivants |
|
128 |
|
The Rigveda's Hariyūpiyā far removed in implication from the
Indus Valley Civilization's Punjāb capital |
|
129 |
|
No certainty from the Rigveda whether Hariyūpiyā was a river
or a town. The turn of the language seems to be in favour of the
former
|
|
129 |
|
|
|
|
|
2. Burrow's contention that arma, armaka mean a ruined site or settlement and his theory that the terms
imply the destruction of Harappān cities by Aryan invaders
|
|
130 |
|
The theory possible only if an Aryan invasion in c. assumed in spite of the grave objections we have raised
|
|
130 |
|
Even if it were assumed, would the terms always signify material ruins?
|
|
130 |
|
Armaka occurs only once in the Rigveda and with very enigmatic associations: sorceresses and evil spirits opposed to Indra
|
|
130 |
|
The place concerned is variously called "Vailasthānaka",
"Vailasthāna" and "Mahāvailastha"
|
|
131 |
Page-143
|
"Vaila" an adjective from the noun "vila" (hole, cave, tunnel).
So the names have to do with a hole and "Mahāvailastha"
should stand for "Great-holed place" |
|
131 |
|
In the Rigveda we have Indra uncovering "the hole of Vala of
the Cows" and Indra opening "the pen of the Cow and the
Horse, like a city"
|
|
132 |
|
The true sense here not only of the Rigvedic pur, translated "city", but also of the Rigvedic "hole"
|
|
132 |
|
Who was Vala and what were the Cows hidden in his hole?
Burrow's own comment on the hymn concerned throws an aura
of eerie strangeness incompatible with any earthly habitation,
Harappān or another |
|
132-133 |
|
Who were the enemies "overpowered and slain" and lying
"shattered all around Vailasthāna"? |
|
133 |
| Vala is the chief of the Dasa-Dasyu demons named Panis
|
|
133 |
|
The Panis are Vala's followers when they withhold the cows and Vritra's when they withhold the waters
|
|
133 |
| Indra is named both "Vala-slayer" and "Vritra-slayer"
|
|
133 |
|
Brihaspati also breaks open cities, overpowers foes, wins great
pens of cows, seeks conquest of the world of Swar and slays the
foe by the hymn of illumination
|
|
133 |
|
Close resemblance here with Burrow's verse about "enemies
overpowered and slain", and the pens of cows conjure up
"Mahāvailastha"
|
|
133 |
|
The inimical Panis who lie shattered around "Vailasthāna"
seem to be of the same company as the evil spirits and demons
there: both are non-human
|
|
133 |
|
The cows appear to be symbolic, associated as they are with
Swar, the sun-world, and with "the hymn of illumination", the
victorious spiritual Word, Mantra
|
|
133-134 |
|
Sri Aurobindo has pointed out several passages where the cow
symbolism is undeniable: L 92. 4; IV. 52. 5; VII. 79. 2
|
|
134 |
|
The odds certainly are that the Rigveda's armaka
non-Harappān but also non-material
|
|
134 |
|
To confirm this reading we have only to see in Griffith's translation the parts of the hymn which Burrow has not cited
|
|
134-135 |
|
Griffith's own comment is that the hymn is wholly a prayer for
the destruction of non-human witches, goblins and evil spirits
of various sorts
|
|
135 |
| Burrow's intepretation utterly gratuitous
|
|
135 |
Page-144
|