HOW DEEP ARE THE ROOTS OF INDIAN

CIVILIZATION?
--An archaeological and Historical Perspective*
B. B. Lal
Former Director General
Archaeological Survey of India

For nearly half-a-century, India has been witnessing what may be

called a kind of „cultural invasion‟ from the West. One sees, for example, in
metropolises like Delhi, Mumbai, etc., 20-25-year-young girls clad in jeans
and tops (and, of course, boys) haunting disco-clubs and reveling on
Valentine days. I have no grudge against that. It had to happen because of
„globalization‟.

But if we ignore this recent phenomenon and go deeper we come

across what may be called the „basal features‟ of Indian culture. These are
more manifest in rural India than in urban and it must be emphasized that
more that eighty percent of India lives in villages. We shall discuss some of
these features and examine how far back in time their roots go.

It is said that religious practices followed by a community keep going

on and on. The same has happened in the context of Indian culture. Thus, for
example, the worship of Ś iva is duly attested to by a seal from Mohenjo-
daro (Pl. I), dating back to the 3rd millennium BCE, which, scholars hold,
depicts him in the form Paśupati (Lord of Beasts). Today, in many temples
we come across Śivaliṅga-cum-yoni (Pl. IIA).

1
Exactly the same combination of liṅga-cum-yoni has been found in the
Harappan levels of Kalibangan. Triśūla, an āyudha (weapon) held usually by
Śiva in one of his hands, has been found engraved on one of the buttocks of
a terracotta bull discovered at Dhalewan, a Harappan site in Haryana. This
establishes not only the use of the triśūla during the Harappan times, but
also the branding of animals – something practiced even now.

-------------
 Keynote Address delivered at the International Conference on „How Deep are
the Roots of Indian Civilization? An Archaeological and Historical
Perspective‟, held in Delhi on November 25-27, 2010.
The svastika motif is considered very auspicious by Indians. It is
painted by businessmen on their safe-vaults and even by the poor on the two
sides of the entrance to their house

2
The symbol is rooted back in the Harappan culture

You may have observed that married women in rural India

(particularly in northern India), and sometimes even in cities, apply sindūra
(vermilion) to their māṅga (medial line of partition of the hair on the head),
which is a sign of their marital status (Pl. IV).

We have come across terracotta female figurines from a site called Nausharo
in Pakistan, dating back to c. 2800-2600 BCE, which depict this very
feature.(P1.V)

3
These figurines are painted with three colors: the ornaments with yellow,
indicating that these were made of gold; the hair with black, which is its
natural color; and the māṅga with red, representing the application of
sindūra.

In Panjab, Rajasthan and Haryana, it is a common practice in rural

areas to offer to the daughter-in-law, at the time of her wedding, a conical
ornament which she puts on her head.(P1. VI)

4
Depending on the economic status of the father-in-law, the ornament is of
either gold or silver. It is interesting to note that exactly the same kind of
conical ornament, in gold, was found during the excavations at Mohenjo-
daro (Pl. VIB). It is ascribable to about the middle of the 3rd millennium
BCE.

The lady appearing on Pl. VIIA wears a series of bangles on her arms.
This practice too goes back to the Harappan times as would be clear from
the figure of the famous „dancing girl‟ of bronze found at Mohenjo-daro (Pl.
VIIB). In fact, the antiquity goes back even earlier, since an actual specimen
of spiraled bangles has been found in the pre-Mature Harappan levels at
Kunal (Pl. VIIC).

5
About two decades ago I got from the market in Aligarh a three-in-one
gadget of copper (Pl. VIIIB). Of these, the one with pointed end is used for
cleaning spaces between the teeth, that having a very small cup at the tip is
meant for taking out wax from ears, while the tweezers are used for plucking
small-sized hair that sometimes grows on the inner side of the eyelid.
Exactly the same kind of three-in-one gadget was found in the Mature
Harappan levels at that site (Pl. VIIIA).

6
 From make-up and toiletry we may pass on to games. At present, in
the game of „Serpent and Ladder‟ the players throw a particular kind of dice
which is cubical in shape and is marked with circlets, numbering 1 to 6 on
the respective six faces of the cube (Pl. IXA). One does not know if this very
game was played during the Harappan times, but the Harappans certainly
used exactly the same kind of dice (Pl. IXB).

7
No less surprising is that the Harappans seem to have played chess, as is
evidenced by the occurrence of gamesmen in the Harappan levels at Lothal.
Plate X shows respectively the gamesmen from Lothal and the
reconstruction of the game by Dr. S.R. Rao.

Even some of the bed-side stories narrated by grandmothers to the children

go back to the Harappan times. For example, on a pot found at Lothal is
painted the story of the „Thirsty Crow‟. The picture shows a deer who failed
to drink water from out of a pitcher since he could not put his mouth inside it
because of the long antlers, while the wise crow collected a few pebbles,
dropped them into the pitcher so as to raise the water-level and succeeded in
drinking the water (Fig. 1).

8
 The practicing of yogic asanas is becoming a craze not only in India
but abroad as well. Indeed, I was surprised to notice during my recent visit
to Los Angeles sign-boards at least three centers within a stretch of only two
miles where training in yoga was imparted. While the yoga system is very
well defined in the yogasūtras of Patan̴jali dating to ca. third century BCE, it
is surprising that the system goes back to the Harappan times, as may be
seen from Fig. 2.

9
Have you observed how Hindus greet one another when they meet or
depart? If not, have a look at Plate XIA

which shows the then Prime Minister and his colleagues greeting the
President when the latter was about to leave on a foreign tour. This mode,
called „Namaste‟, goes back, once again, to the Harappan times (Pl. XIB).

One of the great surprises that we had during the course of our
excavations at Kalibangan in northern Rajasthan was the discovery of an
agricultural field assignable to pre-Mature Harappan times, i.e. somewhere
in the first half of the third millennium BCE. It had two sets of furrows: one
running north-south and the other east-west (Pl. XII).

10
In the former set the intermediary distance between the furrows was 1.9
meters while that in the latter set only 30 cm. Would you believe that exactly
the same pattern of plowing agricultural fields obtains even today not only in
Rajasthan but also in Haryana and western Uttar Pradesh (Pl. XIII).

11
At present mustard plants are grown in north-south furrows, while gram in
the east-west ones (Pl. XIV). The reason for such a distribution is as follows.
These crops are grown during the winter, when the sun goes down south,
casting long south-north shadows. Thus, the mustard plants are grown in the
widely-distanced furrows so that their long shadows are not cast over the
gram plants, impairing the latter‟s growth. Since both mustard and gram
have been discovered amongst the plant remains of the Harappan times, it
would be a reasonable assumption that these very plants were grown in the
field discovered at Kalibangan. Should we not give high marks to the Early
Harappans for such an ingenuous planning!

12
Scores of other examples of this backward journey from the present to the
Harappan times can be cited, but we shall stop here. However, a million-
dollar question is: who were these Harappans whose cultural traits we have
inherited? To answer this, a somewhat longish discussion seems necessary.

In the 19th century, the renowned German scholar, Max Muller, dated
the Vedas to 1200 BCE. He did it on a very ad-hoc basis. Accepting that the
Sūtra literature was ascribable to ca. 6th century BCE, he assigned two
hundred years to each of the preceding periods of the Vedic literature,
namely, those of the Āraṇyakas, Braḥ̄ maṇ̄ạ̄ s and Vedas. Thus, 600 + 200
+200 + 200 = 1200. However, when his contemporaries like Goldstucker,
Whitney and Wilson objected to this kind of ad-hocism, Max Muller
surrendered, saying (1890, Reprint 1979): “If now we ask how we can fix
13
the dates of these periods, it is quite clear that we cannot hope to fix a
terminum a qua [sic]. Whether the Vedic hymns were composed [in] 1000 or
1500 or 2000 or 3000 BC, no power on earth will ever determine.”
However, the most unfortunate part of the story is that in spite of such a
candid surrender by Max Muller himself, his blind followers, for no valid
reason, still hold on to 1200 BCE as the date of the Vedas. However, as
would be demonstrated later, we have now positive evidence to show that
the Vedas are in no case later than 2000 BCE.

In 1920s the Harappan Civilization was discovered and dated to the

rd
3 millennium BCE on the basis of its contacts with the already dated
Mesopotamian civilization. Since, according to the fatwa of Max Muller, the
Vedas were only as old as 1200 BCE, it became a prima facie conclusion
that the Harappan Civilization was not the product of the Vedic people.
Further, since the only other major linguistic group in the country was that
of the Dravidian-speaking people, it was an obvious corollary that the
Harappans were a Dravidian-speaking people.

In 1946, Mortimer Wheeler discovered a fortification wall around one

of the mounds at Harappa. On learning that the Vedas refer to the Aryan god
Indra as a destroyer of forts (puraṁdara), he lost no time in declaring (1947,
p. 82), “On circumstantial evidence, Indra stands accused (of destroying the
Harappan Civilization.” It was further argued that the defeated (Dravidian-
speaking) Harappans were driven all the way to South India.

We may now examine the above-mentioned postulations. First, if the

Harappans were driven away to South India, one would expect a few
Harappan settlements, howsoever fugitive, in that region. But the hard fact is
that there is not even a single Harappan or even Harappan-related site
in the whole of South India -- be it Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh,
Karnataka or Kerala.

The issue can be looked at from another angle as well. It is known that
even when people are ousted from an area, the names of some of the places,
rivers and mountains given by them continue to linger on. As an example of
this may be cited the names of places like Massachusetts and Chicago and of
rivers like Missouri and Mississippi – all in USA, which were the names
given by the original inhabitants of the area, viz., the Red Indians, who were
ousted from these areas by the Europeans a few centuries back. But no
Dravidian names exist in the entire area once occupied by the
Harappans, i.e., from the Indus on the west to the Ghaggar (ancient
Sarasvatī) basin on the east.

14
 Thus, there is no case whatsoever for the Harappans having been a
Dravidian-speaking people. If that be so, were they the Sanskrit-speaking
Vedic people?

It may be recalled that the 1200-BCE date given to the Vedas by Max
Muller was a major argument against the Vedic people having been the
authors of the Harappan Civilization which dates back to the 3 rd millennium
BCE. It, therefore, becomes necessary to re-examine the date of the Vedas.

In this context, the history of the ancient Sarasvatī River is of vital

importance. In the Ṝị̄ gveda, it has been referred to as a mighty river, lying
between the Yamunā and the Sutlej (RV 10.75.5-6) and flowing all the way
down to the sea (RV 7.95.2). The entire evidence suggests that the ancient
Sarasvatī is none other than what is known as the Ghaggar at present, which
is now dry except for a small stretch at its beginning. It is in no way the
Helmand of Afghanistan, as some people willfully hold.

On the bank of the ancient Sarasvatī ther e lay Kalibangan, the well
known site of the Harappan Civilization. After a prolonged occupation,
starting from the Early Harappan times around 3000 BCE through the
Mature Harappan period, it was suddenly abandoned. Carbon-14 dates
assign this abandonment to circa 2000 BCE. Hydrological investigations
indicate that it is about this time that the adjacent river dried up, cutting off
the water-supply on which the city depended. The drying up of the Sarasvati
is also corroborated by the Pañchaviṁśa Bra hmaṇa (XXV.10.16), a later
Vedic text.

From the foregoing evidence it becomes abundantly clear that

the Rigveda, which refers to the Sarasvati as a mighty flowing river, is
anterior to 2000 BCE. How much earlier? It would be anybody‟s guess. In
any case, at least a 3rd millennium BCE horizon is indicated.

What is the fall out of this 3rd mill.-BCE dating of the Rigveda? Its
contents give a very interesting insight into the geography of the times. For
example, RV 10.75.5-6 clearly show that the Ṛigvedic people inhabited the
region from the Indus on the west to the upper reaches of the Yamunā -Gaṅ̇gā
on the east. A question may now be asked: archaeologically, which
civilization spread over this very area during the 3rd millennium BCE? One
has no option but to admit that it was none other than the Harappan
Civilization. Thus, space and time coordinates duly establish that the
Vedas and the Harappan Civilization are but two faces of the same coin
(Fig. 3).

15
 Against this Vedic=Harappan equation, three objections have been
raised. One, the Vedic people were nomads, whereas the Harappans were
highly civilized. Two, the Vedic vehicles were provided with spoked wheels,
while the Harappans did not know such a wheel. Three, the horse played a
very important role in the life of the Vedic people, whereas the Harappans
did not domesticate the horse. We shall now examine the validity of these
objections.

Nomads keep on wandering from place to place and have no

permanent settlements. On the other contrary, the Vedic people not only had
regular settlements but many of these settlements were fortified (RV
7.15.14). On the economic front too, they were well off and were engaged in
both internal as well as external trade. Their sea-faring boats were provided
with „a hundred oars‟ (RV 1.116.5). In matters of governance, they had a
well defined hierarchy of rulers. Thus, for example, whereas Abhyāvartin
Chāyamāna was called a Samrāṭ (sovereign; RV 6.27.8), Chitra was a Rājan
(king) and others were just Rājakas (kinglings; RV 8.21.18). Let not
anybody think that these tiers were not real. The Śatapatha Bra hmaṇ̄ạ̄
(V.1.1.13) clearly states:
By offering the Rājasūya he becomes Rā jā and by the Vājapeya he becomes
Samrāṭ, and the office of Rā jā is lower and that of Samrā t ̣̣ the higher . A Rā jā
16
 might indeed wish to become a Samrā ṭ, for the office of Rā jā is lower and of
Samrāṭ the higher. But the Samrā ṭ would not wish to become a Rā jā for the office
of the Rājā is lower, and that of the Samrāṭ the higher.

Would you still hold the view that people having fortified settlements,
carrying on overseas trade using hundred-oar ships, and having a three-tier
system amongst the rulers were „nomads‟?

Now to the spoked wheel. In the hot and human climate of India, one
does not expect examples of wooden wheels to survive. But that the
Harappan wheels did have spokes is clearly borne out by the terracotta
models of wheels recovered from various sites (Pl. XV). Thus, for example,
in the specimens from Rakhigarhi and Kalibangan, the spokes are
represented by radial painted lines emanating from the central hub and
reaching the periphery. In the specimen from Banawali, the spokes are
shown by similar radial lines, but in low relief.

The horse‟s bones have been the bone of contention amongst scholars.
Those who hold that the Harappans weren‟t Vedic people, strongly deny all
17
the available evidence regarding its presence at Harappan sites. To begin
with, they do not accept the terracotta figurine from Mohenjo-daro, which
the excavator, E.J.H. Mackay, categorically pronounced as that of a horse:
“Perhaps the most interesting of the model animals is the one that I
personally take to represent a horse (Mackay 1938, Vol. I, p.289, pl.
lXXVIII, no.11). Let that alone, the excavation at Lothal has thrown up
another terracotta figurine of the horse (Pl. XVI; S.R. Rao 1985).

The site has also yielded the faunal remains of that animal (Rao, ibid., p.
641). Yet another site in Gujarat, namely, Surkotada, has also thrown up
faunal remains of the horse (A.K. Sharma in J.P. Joshi 1990, p. 381). This
identification has duly been endorsed by an internationally recognized
authority on horse bones, namely, Professor Sandor Bokonyi, through a
letter written to the Director General, Archaeological Survey of India, in the
following words:

18
 Through a thorough study of the equid remains of the prehistoric settlement of
Surkotada, Kutch, excavated under the direction of Dr. J.P. Joshi, I can state the
following: The occurrence of true horse (Equus Caballus L.) was evidenced by
the enamel pattern of the upper and lower cheek and by the size and form of the
incisors and phalanges (toe bones). Since no wild horse lived in India in post-
Pleistocene times, the domestic nature of the Surkotada horse is undoubtful.
This is also supported by an inter-maxilla fragment whose incisor tooth shows
clear signs of crib-biting, a bad habit only existing among domestic horses which
are not extensively used for war.

In a subsequent paper (Bokonyi 1997, p. 300), he re-confirmed his

findings: “All in all, the evidence enumerated above undoubtedly raises
the possibility of the occurrence of domesticated horses in mature phase
of the Harappa Culture, at the end of the third millennium BC.”

From what has been stated in the foregoing paragraphs, it becomes

abundantly clear that all three objections, namely, that the Vedic people
were nomads, that the Harappans did not use spoked wheels and that they
did not domesticate the horse, are entirely baseless. In the sequel, it gets
re-confirmed that the Harappan Civilization and the Vedas, as already
stated, are but two faces of the same coin.

We now pass on to the final aspect of the issue, namely, were these
Harappans=Vedic people immigrants or indigenous?

Soon after the discovery of the Harappan Civilization in the 1920s, a

view was advanced that this civilization had its origin in West Asian
civilizations. However, when the protagonists of this view were asked to
point out exactly which features of this civilization were derived from West
Asia, they fumbled since none of the features of the Harappan Civilization
was identical with any feature of the West Asian civilizations – be it town-
planning or drainage system or use of kiln-fired bricks or pottery or
sculptural art or the writing system. When this view took the beating,
another curious view was put forward, namely, if not the actual civilization
was drawn from West Asia, at least the „idea of civilization‟ came from
there!

However, excavations at a number of sites on the Indian subcontinent

– such as Mehrgarh, Kot Diji, Harappa, and Rehaman Dheri in Pakistan and
Kalibangan, Banawali, Rakhigarhi, Kunal, Bhirrana and Dholavira in India –
have shown that the Harappan Civilization had evolved on the Indian soil
itself. At least two clear-cut antecedent stages have come to light which have
been designated as Early Harappan and Ravi-Hakra. The C-14 dates for the

19
lower levels of Bhirrana, in the Sarasvati basin, are as follows (L.S. Rao:
2005, p. 67).
Sample No. BS 2314. Calibrated age: 1 Sigma 4770 (4536, 4506,
4504) 4353 BCE
Sample No. BS 2318. Calibrated age: 1 Sigma 5336 (5041) 4721
BCE
Sample No. BS 2333. Calibrated age: 1 Sigma 6647 (6439) 6221
BCE
It is thus abundantly clear that the origin of the Harappan Civilization
goes back to the 6th millennium BCE, if not earlier. It is also likely that
further field work may bring to light a still earlier stage. Anyway, the
Harappan Civilization cannot be regarded as an „import‟ from
elsewhere. It is „indigenous‟. And since, as already shown, the
Harappans and the Vedic people are the same, the latter ipso facto are
indigenous – neither invaders nor immigrants.

Looking ahead. – As we have already noted, the Bhirrana stage goes

back to the 6th millennium BCE and the evolutionary story then goes on to
the Mature Harappan times in the 3rd millennium BCE.

On the basis of the astronomical data in RV 1.105.1, this Maṇ̄ḍ̣̄ ala is

datable to circa 4,500 BCE, whereas, on the same basis the Atharva Veda is
ascribable to 2300 BCE. Is it then possible to work out the evolution of the
material culture from the time of the Ṛigveda to that of the Atharva Veda
and see if it matches the cultural evolution as gleaned from the
archaeological sites?

To achieve the foregoing, a competent team of archaeologists and

Sanskrit scholars will have to work together, say for about five years. What
is then needed is to set up a Special National Project for the purpose. But
who would support it financially? The Government of India or State
Governments or Big Businesses or some/all of these together? Let us see
whose conscience is aroused!

REFERENCES
Bokonyi, S. 1997. Horse Remains from the Prehistoric Site of Surkotada,
Kutch, Late Third Millennium BC. South Asian Archaeology, 13:297-307.
Joshi, J.P. 1990. Excavations at Surkotada1971-72 and Exploration in
Kutch. New Delhi: Archaeological Survey of India.
Mackay, E.J.H. 1938. Further Excavations at Mohenjo-daro. 2 vols. Delhi:
Government of India.
Muller, F. Max. 1890 (reprint 1979). Physical Religion. New Delhi: Asian
Educational Service.

20
Rao, L. S. 2005. New Light on the Excavation of Harappan Settlement at
Bhirrana. Puratattva, No. 35, pp.60-68.
Rao, S. R. 1985. Lothal – A Harappan Port Town (1955-62), Vol. II. New
Delhi: Archaeological Survey of India.
Wheeler, R.E.M. 1947. Harappa 1947: The Defences and Cemetery R 37.
Ancient India, No. 3, pp. 58-130.
ILLUSTRATIONS
Pl. I: Same as ………Slide 9 of Power Point presentation
Pl. II:A &B ………. Slide 10 ………………..
Pl. III A&B……….. Slide 14 ……………….
Pl. IV ……….. Slide 18 ……………
Pl. V ………… Slide 19 …………….
Pl. VIA &B ……… Slide 21 …………….. …
Pl. VIIA, B &C Slide 20 ………..………
Pl. VIIIA & B Slide 22 ……….……….
Pl. IXA & B ……….. Slide 24 ……………..
Pl. XA & B …………Slide 23 …………….
Fig. 1 ………………..Slide 25
Fig. 2 ………… Slide 6
Pl. XI A & B…………Slide 26 …………….
Pl. XII ……….. Slide 17 ………….
Pl. XIII ……… Slide 15 …………
Pl. XIV …… Slide 16 …………..
Fig. 3 ……………… Slide 35 …………
Pl. XV ……… Slide 51 ……………..
Pl. XVI ………………Slide 50

21