On the Excavation of Theories

March 21, 2016 § 9 Comments

QamarThe Early Cultural Relations of India and Iran (Qamar, G.A)

According to Arthur Basham, tall, fair, long haired men in light horse-drawn chariots with spoked wheels, came to India in waves, smashed through Harappa several times, forcing the locals to rebuild their western walls again and again, until the last time, when the city was destroyed and the inhabitants murdered en masse; the Aryans then spread to the Ganga valley and beyond, eventually becoming…us.

By the time I learnt history in school, questions had been raised about this theory. Mohenjodaro’s and Harappa’s demise was now laid at the door of climatic changes and the fluctuating course of rivers. But the question of what happened to the Indus valley people was never resolved, and the story of the Aryans coming in was preserved.

Experts argued hotly, meanwhile, about whether the Aryans originated in Central Asia or in Lithuania in Europe. But the indigenous Aryan theorists, on the other hand, have always maintained that the Aryans originated in India, and to the extent that there is much in common, linguistically, culturally, mythologically and genetically, between India, central Asia and large parts of Europe, these theorists argued that it could as easily be explained by movement in the opposite direction, out of India.

Romila Thapar and other eminent Indian historians believe that the theory of a massive Aryan invasion is not supported by archaeological evidence. But the extraordinarily close cultural connections need to be explained, and Thapar and others believe that external cultural influences did diffuse into India over centuries, either through trade or a small group of migrants who merged into the larger local population but managed to make a big cultural impact. Cultural diffusion has no need for invading armies; people can stay in their own countries but exchange cultural, religious and technological ideas in both directions. To Thapar, Aryanism was not a racial but a cultural entity that spread over a large area in Eurasia, mixing with earlier local traditions everywhere, perhaps in the same way that Christianity spread to Britain: not by hordes of invading Palestinians, but without being indigenous either.


Indra : where did he come from, where did he go? (Courtesy Wikipedia)

According to radical thinkers like DD Kosambi, all of five “Aryan” tribes made it into India from places like Phrygia and lost their identities in the melting pot; he believed that Brahmins were priests of the earlier autochthonous order, defeated by these tribes because of their superior war technologies, but clawing back their way in the social hierarchy by incorporating alien theologies into the older faith and becoming the priests of the new order.

Sanjeev Sanyal, whose book I reviewed recently, tilts toward the indigenous theory, citing genetic evidence; he believes that the Rig Veda was written by the inhabitants of Harappa, who then got up and moved eastwards in search of greener pastures once the mighty Saraswati changed its course and became the lowly Ghaggar.

The Aryan question is an intellectual curiosity, completely irrelevant to the reality and future of today’s India. And yet, it has – incredibly – become political dynamite. Extreme nationalists claim that the theory that people came into India and influenced Hinduism is a Western conspiracy concocted to denigrate Indians, and that the Indian historians who continue to propound the theory are unpatriotic communists. Liberals are equally incensed by what they see as an unscientific attempt to conjure up a spuriously glorious past in the name of nationalism.

G. A. Qamar is a retired archaeologist, and his book, while very recent, reflects a position that is a hark back  to Arthur Basham. Qamar believes, plausibly, that the Indus Valley people were culturally closely linked to Iranians. Based on a preponderance of archaeological, linguistic and scriptural similarities, he has reached the conclusion that the Aryans were indeed a racial group that originated in Central Asia and spread from there, splitting first into the Indo-Europeans who headed westwards and the Indo-Iranians who lived in Iran for a long time. This second group then split again, says Qamar, and a group that had developed a deep animosity towards their Persian cousins, moved eastwards into India, where it took root after absorbing mythological and linguistic elements from the aboriginal inhabitants.

I don’t know. The fact that Qamar’s book is poorly edited and contains many grammatical and other errors makes it difficult to read, and even tougher to find persuasive. The archaeological and other similarities with ancient Iran so painstakingly documented by Qamar are too numerous to ignore, but neither the presence of identical pottery nor that of identical poetry can definitively prove that a large number of people moved bag and baggage from either one to the other. What if it was the ideas behind the painted pots and passionate poems, that diffused between the cultures, on the back of a small number of travelers, soldiers, tradesmen, or missionaries? Simplistic explanations of any variety are likely to be wrong in the real world, as Qamar doesn’t seem to understand. As Qamar himself quotes V Gordon Childe, the Australian archaeologist, as saying about the Aryan question:

“ the Aryan history is a veritable labyrinth of complicated and intermingled cultures each with a long and intricate history of its own behind it. There is no single thread to guide us certainly out of maze, but rather a multitude of strands intertwined and entangled and leading along the divergent paths.”

Qamar’s is one of four books that I picked up recently in an attempt to understand the topic better (I have already read Basham, Thapar, Kosambi and Sanyal on the topic). Whether the Aryans came in from outside, went out from inside, or never existed, doesn’t change a thing about life. But it is easy in today’s world to hold an opinion because you read it on your Facebook feed and it is broadly in line with the prejudices you already subscribe to. I intend to buck the trend and arrive at an opinion after reviewing the arguments on all sides. Unfortunately, Qamar’s book, while rich in archaeological evidence and in its survey of existing research, did not help much. I will have to dig deeper.


Tagged: , , , ,

§ 9 Responses to On the Excavation of Theories

  • tskraghu says:

    isn’t it intriguing we can talk about eating habits and love life of trex, we’re unable to resolve this piece.

  • psriblog says:

    I know what you mean, but sometimes it is difficult to piece together a reliable narrative of what exactly happened yesterday based on the sworn accounts of six eyewitnesses. So it isn’t that intriguing to me that it is so difficult to arrive at the ‘truth’ about something that happened 3000 years ago or earlier, based on the meager evidence on hand. What I find really intriguing is how people can be so confident of their pet hypothesis – without having examined a shred of evidence themselves – and get so angry at others who don’t share it.

  • theotheri says:

    This post would be enough to convince me to be an enthusiastic reader of your blog if I weren’t already one. Your determination not to jump on a bandwagon when we really can’t be certain about our conclusion is totally refreshing — and unfortunately, not common enough.

    Thank you. And please don’t stop.

  • […] while the other side is accused of being unscientific fascists or religious nutjobs. I read one unsatisfactory book that argued in favor of an external (Persian) origin for Indian civilization a few weeks ago; I […]

  • […] cultures in India is often explained by a cataclysmic invasion theory, and there is much that is questionable about that theory. But Redfield’s theory, in addition to the constant influx and efflux of traders, soldiers, […]

  • oregaknow108 says:

    Lovely posts and look forward to reading more.

    not sure if you are familiar with the works of archaeologist & epigraphist Dr. R. Nagaswamy, been finding his scholarly work to be of immense value providing proper insight.
    For further research, I would also like to recommend a journal by the Indian National Science Academy (New Delhi), the ‘Indian Journal of History of Science’.

    I too find it intriguing how people can have so much confidence in their hypotheses, but is equally true that public opinion is increasingly being shaped by misleading media agencies.
    however this also being human tendency in some ways can be perceived through the mass understanding of scientific concepts and with rising numbers willing to leave tradition behind & eager to jump on the scientific bandwagon with pretty much no idea of what scientific temper & inquiry entail. This has lead to a certain cult mindset, “scienticism” and a variant of it might exist in academic circles too.

    A very interesting read trying to investigate the truth in the claims made by a certain theoretical physicist in the acclaimed 80s title “The Tao of Physics”, can be found in T.J. Axon’s 1988 reappraisal “Beyond the Tao of Physics” where he reexamines Capra’s claims while admits to the uncanny resemblance of the modern concepts of physics to the ideas of some varieties of mystical philosophy. Asks if such resemblances are entirely coincidental and discusses the likely cultural implications of the parallels between physics and mysticism.
    This book has long been taken off shelves, so might be hard to find. But if needed am more than happy to share.

    best wishes.

    • psriblog says:

      Thank you for the kind words. I havent come across the works of Dr Nagaswamy and I will look for them. I just found a used copy of Axon’s book on Amazon and bought it. I do own Capra’s book somewhere – but I am not a mystically inclined person, so I haven’t read it.

  • oregaknow108 says:

    Am glad you found a copy. Axon’s book might help you decide whether to read Capra.

    I was wrong if I managed to suggest that reading gets people inclined towards a certain life principle that is experiential.
    Most people get inclined towards one thing or another and it isn’t hard to bind our minds that way. While people surely have their relative methodological differences, I make a sincere attempt at minimizing the ‘observer effect’.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

What’s this?

You are currently reading On the Excavation of Theories at PSri's Book Blog.


%d bloggers like this: