What Lies in Bones: The Story of Harappa and Fallacy of Aryan Invasion Veena Mushrif Tripathy 1 1. Deccan College Post Graduate and Research Institute, Pune 411006, Maharashtra, India Received: 17 September 2013; Accepted: 28 September 2013; Revised: 11 October 2013 Heritage: Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies in Archaeology 1 (2013): 29 35 Abstract: Harappan civilization which flourished in North west of Indian subcontinent during 3 rd millennium B.C. to 1500 B.C has been focus of archaeological studies since the discovery of Harappa and Mohenjo daro in early twenties. It was very difficult to explain sudden decline and disintegration of this civilization. Finding of random human skeletal remains at Mohenjo daro were considered a potential evidence for the in famous massacre theory of Aryan Invasion by the excavator. But the anthropological studies conducted on human skeletal remains by K.A.R. Kennedy and his colleagues who are biological anthropologist strongly disagree with this theory. The breakage pattern of bones suggest post mortem in origin. There are doubts about the antiquity of these skeletal remains i.e., whether they belong to Harappan period. With this background present paper discusses flaws of Aryan invasion theory putting the anthropological evidence. At the same time some of literary sources are mentioned for further strengthening the anthropological findings. Keywords: Harappan Civilization, Mythical Massacre, Mohenjo daro, Anthropology, Aryan Invasion Theory, Skeletal Analysis, DNA Structure Introduction The discovery of Harappa and Mohenjo daro in 1920s was a very crucial moment from anthropological point of view. These are huge cities located on the north west of India giving evidences of urbanization (Fig. 1). Other than these mentioned sites, Chanu daro, Kalibangan, Lothal shows uniformity in their architectural and pottery assemblages and therefore named as Harappan civilization or Indus civilization which flourished from 3000 BCE to 1500 BCE. Around 1500 BCE there are archaeological evidences indicating sudden decline of this civilization. It was a big question to address. At Mohejo daro the excavators encountered disarticulated skeletons on roads and other parts of the city and not in the graveyard or cemetery (Fig. 2). Many skeletons were either disarticulated or incomplete. Marshall (1931) attributed plague, famine and sudden death as causes of death. Mackey (1938) suggested that these individuals had been slain by raiders while attempting to escape from the city during a military attack. Several disassociated causes, including enigmatic absence of a formal
ISSN 2347 5463 Heritage: Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies in Archaeology 1: 2013 mortuary area at the site, were taken as supporting evidences for this massacre and the massacre idea was immediately ignited as awful proof of the invasion of the subcontinent by the Aryans. Wheeler (1968) while accusing the Aryans for destroying the cities of the Harappan civilization and for the massacre at Mohenjo daro cited the Vedic texts describing that the Aryan were brave, efficient and dreadful warriors who knew bow arrow; horses were used to pull their chariots; they were protected by armour and shields. The citation of Indra as the fort destroyer who rends forts as age consumes a garment is mentioned in Rig Vedic hymns used main reference for this theory. In attacking the fortresses of the dasyus (the name applied to non Aryan), Indra setting fire to the buildings, In the kindled fire he burnt up all their weapons, and made him rich with knie and carts and horses 30 Figure 1: Spread of the Harappan Civilization (en.wikipedia.org)
Mushrif Tripathy 2013: 29 35 Figure 2: Disarticulated skeletons in room no 74 at Mohenjo Daro (Courtesy: Dales 1964) Aryan Invasion Theory and Mythical Massacre at Mohenjo Daro But as early as in 1964, the so called massacre theory was become a controversial. Dales (1964) points out the invalidity of this theory in his article of Mythical Massacre at Mohenjo Daro. Following points are critically discussed in details about archaeological contexts of human skeletal remains; 1. Nine years excavation 1922 1931; total 37 skeletal remains; not single body found in fortified part of the city 2. The problem of asserting them to Harappan chronology. Mr. Hargreaves excavated these remains states that, out of 14 skeletal remains in Room 74, House V (HR area), 4 were found above the ruins of the southern wall of the room, thus indicating period posterior to abandonment of the latest stage of city. 3. In room 74 area, a group of nine skeletons found, in which 5 belongs to children. 4. Skeletal remains at lane do not indicate any thing about the exact position and context. 5. In the Well room tragedy (DK area, G section) 2 skeletons were found. But the circumstances surrounding this tragedy are unknown. Thus summarising his observation Dales (1964, 1965) noted that his skeletal collection and that the Marshall s and Mackey s series did not represent a single archaeological 31
ISSN 2347 5463 Heritage: Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies in Archaeology 1: 2013 time frame, thus belonging to uncertain temporal and cultural context and cannot be urged for a single tragedy. Dales (1964) also pointed out that on purely chronological grounds no definite correlation between the end of Indus civilization and the Aryan invasion cannot be established. While defusing the Aryan invasion theory Prof. Walimbe (2011a: 324) describe that the concept of Indo Aryan group of people and their invasion has played a prominent role in explaining the cultural history of Indian sub continent. The concept can be traced back to as early as the 18 th century, when Max Mueller (1867) thrilled by the complexity of Indian culture coined the word Aryan Race and thus emerged an imaginary creature Aryan Man. He propounded the theory that the Aryans, living somewhere outside India, invaded or migrated to the Indian subcontinent around 1500 BCE and later settled in India Therefore skeletal analysis of these remains was focused on to answer questions related to their identity including who were these people and where did they come from. The craniometric data was used to classify and justify the foreign element within population. The first concise and well documented report on the skeletal material from Harappa and Mohejodaro was by Guha and Sewell in 1931. In 1935 Guha (1935, 1944) recognized four racial groups while describing the Mohejo daro population, which he called Mediterranean, Proto Australoid, Alpine and Mongoloid. This classification become base for future studies while analysing skeletal assemblages from different sites. In 1962 Gupta, Dutta and Basu restudied the skeletal findings from Cemetery R 37, Area G, Area AB and Cemetery H at Harappa and classified them into similar categories. According to the study, the presence of long headed (dolichocranial) people represented all areas whereas the round headed or brachycranial population was only seen in Area G, concluding this was new type. There are better explanations for understanding the craniometric differences seen in the population. Many physical anthropologist studied Harappan crania (Hemphill et al. 1991, 1997). Kennedy (1995) came to the conclusion that there is not much evidence to prove the foreign element in Harappa. Kennedy (1995: 54) mentions that our multivariate approach does not define the biological identity of an ancient Aryan population, but it does indicate that the Indus Valley and Gandhara peoples shared a number of craniometric, odontometric and discrete traits that point to a high degree of biological affinity, thus completely denying the theory of Aryan invasion. With the new advances in studies and revaluation it shows no significant phenotypic differences in the population and even though the Harappan skeletal assemblage coming from different deposits they belong to one homogeneous group. As these assemblages belong to Harappan cities, the variation in size and shape can be explained with migrations and immigrations of different population from surrounding areas. As these cities had huge trade networks with other parts it is possible that many merchants or traders may have landed to these cities. This migration of the population is also a present phenomenon. 32
Mushrif Tripathy 2013: 29 35 The so called invasion also is in question from palaeopathological point of view. If we considered the evidence from disarticulated skeletal remains from Mohenjo daro, as mentioned in earlier paragraph, we should be able to get some traumatic marks on bones. The Harappan skeletal collection has been restudied by Kennedy (1984, 1994) in the light of the new methodological approaches in the field of forensic anthropology and palaeopathology. He offers a very critical judgement in this regard. He states when present, marks of injury are quite specific in their appearance, both microscopic and macroscopic analyses revealing tell tale features which are not to be confused with abrasions or other marks of erosional and post mortem origin... To be sure, individuals victimized by trauma may not bear the marks of their assailant or his weapons on their skeletal tissue (as with cases of drowning, strangulation, poisoning, cardiac arrest due to fright, etc.); but in cases of genocide (like military engagements, mass executions, ritual sacrifices) where multiple victims are involved it is usual for some individuals of a group to reveal marks of traumatic stress on their bones and teeth (Kennedy 1984:427). Death by an axe or sword may not be registered on the bone if the wound is superficial and if only the soft parts are traumatised. But it is reasonable to expect actual wound marks in case of unceremonious slaughter, which are not present in Mohenjo daro specimens. The proposition of a traumatic end of Harappan culture (Mohenjo daro in particular) is based on essentially an archaeological evidence of disorderly disposal of dead rather than on the skeletal evidence of trauma. In this case the problem of interpreting the disarray of skeletons becomes more complicated. This haphazard mode of disposal of dead might have had some social implications rather than solely pathological. Anthropology or archaeology has no conclusive answer to this puzzle at present. It may be mentioned that some scholars believe that the Mohenjo daro individuals exhibit a unique pattern of regional phenotypic variability with striking differences setting them apart from skeletal series at other Harappan sites. It has been claimed that the skeletons in question may belong to a post Harappan period and share no direct biological affinity with the population of the mature Harappan phase (Gadgil and Thapar 1990; c.f. Walimbe 2011b). To strengthen the fact of no Aryan Invasion, human population genetics data generated in recent years shows that there is no material evidence for any large scale migrations into India over the period of 4500 to 800 BCE. On the basis of presence of sub lineages of U2 frequencies (U2e and U2i), Basu et al. (2003) argue that Aryan speakers possibly came into India in small bands over a long period of time, as opposed to in a single wave of migration. The paper published by Mait Metspalu et al (2011) has finally ended the controversial existence of Aryan Invasion. Here they report data for more than 600,000 SNP markers genotyped in 142 samples from 30 ethnic groups in India and combining results with other available genome wide data. They suggest that Indian populations are characterized by two major ancestry components, one of which is spread at 33
ISSN 2347 5463 Heritage: Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies in Archaeology 1: 2013 comparable frequency and haplotype diversity in populations of South and West Asia and the Caucasus. The second component is more restricted to South Asia and accounts for more than 50% of the ancestry in Indian populations. Haplotype diversity associated with these South Asian ancestry components is significantly higher than that of the components dominating the West Eurasian ancestry palette. Modeling of the observed haplotype diversities suggests that both Indian ancestry components are older than the purported Indo Aryan invasion 3,500 YBP. To conclude these DNA findings, it is proved that people all over India have common genetic traits and origin. All Indians have the same DNA structure. No foreign genes or DNA has entered the Indian mainstream in the last 60,000 years. Conclusion Thus it is now proved by anthropological, archaeological and genetic investigations, that there is nothing called as Aryan invasion. References Dales, G. F. 1964. The Mythical Massacre at Mohenjodaro. Expedition 6(3):37 43. Dales, G.F. 1965. New Investigations at Mohenjodarao. Archaeology 18(2):145 150. Gadgil M., and R. Thapar. 1990. Human Ecology in India: Some Historical Perspectives, Interdisciplinary Science Review 15(3):209 223. Hemphill, B. E., A. F Christensen, and S. I. Mustafakulov. 1997. Trade or Travel: An Assessment of Interpopulational Dynamics Among Bronze Age Indo Iranian Populations. In South Asian Archaeology 1995, Vol. 2, R. Allchin and B. Allchin (eds.). pp. 855 871. Oxford and IBH, New Delhi. Hemphill, B. E., J. R. Lukacs, and K. A. R. Kennedy. 1991. Biological Adaptations and Affinities of Bronze Age Harappans. In Harappan Excavation 1986 1990: A Multidisciplinary Approach to Third Millennium Urbanism, R. H. Meadow (ed.). pp.137 182. Prehistory Press, Madison. Kennedy, K. A. R. 1984. Trauma and Disease in the Ancient Harappans: Recent Assessments of the Skeletal Record. In Frontiers of the Indus Civilization, B. B. Lal and S. P. Gupta (eds.). pp. 425 436. Books and Books, New Delhi. Kennedy, K. A. R. 1994. Identification of Sacrificial and Massacre Victims in Archaeological Sites: The Skeletal Evidence. Man and Environment XIX(1 2):247 251. Kennedy, K. A. R. 1995. Have Aryans Been Identified in the Prehistoric Skeletal Record From South Asia? Biological Anthropology and Concepts of Ancient Races. In The Indo Aryans of Ancient South Asia: Language, Material Culture and Ethnicity, G. Erdosy (ed.). pp. 32 66. Walter de Gruyter, Berlin. Mackay E.J.H. (Ed). 1938. Further Excavations at Mohenjo daro. New Delhi: Government of India. Marshall J. 1931. Mohenjo daro and the Indus Civilization. London: Probsthain. 34
Mushrif Tripathy 2013: 29 35 Metspalu, M., I. G. Romero, B. Yunusbayev, G. Chaubey, C. B. Mallick, G. Hudjashov, M. Nelis, R. Magi, E. Metspalu, M. Remm, R. Pitchappan, L. Singh, K. Thangaraj, R. Villems and T. Kivisild. 2011. Shared and Unique Components of Human Population Structure and Genome Wide Signals of Positive Selection in South Asia, in The American Journal of Human Genetics 89: 731 744. Walimbe, S.R. 2011a. Human Skeletal Studies: Changing Trends in Theoretical and Methodological Perspectives. Journal of Indian Anthropological Society 46:305 341. Walimbe S.R. 2011b. The Harappan Civilization and Human Skeletal Biology: A Fresh Look in A New History and Culture of the Indian People, Vol.II. D.K. Chakrabarti (ed.). Vivekananda International Foundation. Wheeler R.E.M. 1968. The Indus Civilization. 3 rd Ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 35