Current Science Association

Historical methodology and expert opinion in the Aryan Debate

Author(s): T. R. S. Prasanna
Source: Current Science , 25 February 2020, Vol. 118, No. 4 (25 February 2020), pp. 664-670
Published by: Current Science Association

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/27138719

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

Current Science Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Current Science

This content downloaded from

47.31.145.118 on Tue, 31 Dec 2024 09:37:21 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
HISTORICAL NOTES

Historical methodology and expert opinion in the Aryan Debate

T. R. S. Prasanna

We show that Trautmann’s criteria to accept expert opinion are compatible with the guidelines for an ‘ob-
jective historian’ proposed by Schneider based on the ‘generally accepted standards of historical scholar-
ship’ described by Evans. Taken together, they form a credible framework to assess evidences in the Aryan
Debate. We show that Sanskrit scholars who support the Aryan Invasion/Migration Theory have implied
transmission of cultural practices from 3rd millennium BC India to 2nd millennium BC Eurasia. This tilts the
debate on common features found in Indo-European cultures in favour of transmission out of India. We pro-
pose the Sanskrit in Indus Civilization Theory (SICT) based on joint consensus between Sanskrit scholars
and scientists that Vedic rituals date to 3rd millennium BC. All theories of the origins of the Indo-European
language family must incorporate the main elements of SICT when discussing Indian evidences later than
3rd millennium BC. We discuss the methodological issues related to claims based on recent genetic studies.
We show that SICT can accommodate the results of recent genetic studies.

William Jones, in a speech delivered domain. Clearly, such discussions reflect address the guidelines to be followed by
before the Asiatic Society in 1786, was the subjective perspectives of specialist an ‘objective historian’. We show that
the first to propose a common Indo- scholars. Not surprisingly, such studies Trautmann’s criteria are compatible with
European language family based on the have not found broad support. Given the the guidelines for an ‘objective histo-
similarities between Sanskrit and Euro- diversity of evidences, the primary issue rian’. Taken together, they form a credi-
pean languages1–6. This proposal found is to first establish the criteria to accept ble framework to assess evidences in the
favour with several European Sanskrit expert opinions outside one’s profession- Aryan Debate. The important implica-
scholars. Subsequently, in 1847, Max al domain. The historian Trautmann3, has tions that follow are also discussed. (The
Muller proposed the Aryan Invasion proposed the criteria for the same. We discussions on historians’ methodology
Theory (AIT)1,2. According to AIT, Aryan have recently shown28 that Trautmann’s in this note must be viewed as continua-
tribes invaded India from Central Asia in criteria to accept expert opinion are vir- tion of our earlier discussion of Traut-
the 2nd millennium BC. The oldest text, tually identical to the judicial criteria to mann’s criteria28.)
the Rig Veda was dated to ~1500 BC. The accept expert testimony described in a
later Vedic ritual texts, Saṃhitas and recent judgment of the Supreme Court of
Brāhmaṇas, were dated to ~1000– India29. This is an independent confirma- Trautmann’s criteria and general
800 BC. The AIT has been recently mod- tion that strengthens the credibility and methodology of historians
ified to the Aryan Migration Theory acceptability of Trautmann’s criteria.
(AMT) due to lack of any evidence for In an entirely unrelated development, We have discussed extensively Traut-
an invasion. However, the dates of the historian Richard Evans testified as an mann’s criteria elsewhere28. Briefly,
Vedic texts remain unchanged in the expert witness in a Court case in England Trautmann3 described the ‘fundamental
AMT. To this day, linguistic evidences where the issue of historical methodo- discoveries’ (by specialist scholars) that
are the mainstay of AMT1–6. logy was central, since the case was a de- historians must accept as follows: ‘These
From the very beginning, there was famation suit filed by one historian discoveries are fundamental in the sense
also some scepticism to AIT, including against another30. The significance of that the historical facts they uncovered
among European scholars1. Later, in this case can be appreciated from the fact have survived the critical scrutiny of the
1890s, Tilak7 and Jacobi8 opposed AIT that the media referred to it as ‘history community of scholars worldwide and
based on astronomical references in the on trial’, while Schneider30 refers to it as are therefore well-established truths of
Vedic texts that gave a higher chrono- ‘historical methodology on trial’. history today and as far as we can see
logy. From the 1890s to this day, most The Court eventually went with into the future.’
scientists oppose AIT/AMT7–18. Follow- Evans’ description of historical metho- Evans31 begins his first chapter, ‘His-
ing the discovery of the Indus Valley dology that he also summarized as ‘gen- tory on Trial’, by describing concerns
Civilization in the 1920s to the present erally accepted standards for historical about the methods of historians: ‘What is
time, most archaeologists oppose AIT19–27. scholarship’30. Subsequently, Evans31 historical objectivity? How do we know
The above evidences have been dis- wrote a book where he described the when a historian is telling the truth? ...’
cussed in several books and articles1–6. concerns about historians’ treatment of Briefly, he raises concerns about subjec-
Most of these discussions are by scholars evidences. Schneider30 has combined tivity in the choice of evidences, cherry-
who are experts in their relevant discip- Evans’ summary with the Court’s eval- picking of evidences, neglect or under-
lines. Conversely, they are not expe- uation of historical evidences into a set playing of unfavourable evidences, etc.
rienced (nor are they expected to be so) of guidelines for an ‘objective historian’. Evans had in his report submitted to
in addressing diverse evidences, includ- Therefore, it is of great interest to exa- the Court described the ‘generally accep-
ing those outside their professional mine how well Trautmann’s criteria ted standards of historical scholarship’

664 CURRENT SCIENCE, VOL. 118, NO. 4, 25 FEBRUARY 2020

This content downloaded from

47.31.145.118 on Tue, 31 Dec 2024 09:37:21 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 HISTORICAL NOTES
(see footnote 21 of Schneider30). Briefly, sions. This shows that if Trautmann’s reliability of each of the steps. However,
he states30 ‘[D]oes he give a reasonably criteria are followed, there is no scope to the scrutiny must be for all the ‘funda-
accurate account of the documents he dismiss counter-evidences. mental discoveries’ and not just selec-
uses; … does he, in other words, advance G3. She must be even-handed in her tively for the unfavourable ones.
his arguments in a reasonably objective treatment of evidence and eschew G7. She must take the motives of his-
and unbiased manner.’ ‘cherry-picking’. torical actors into consideration.
Combining these with the Court’s cri- A3. According to Trautmann’s criteria, A7. In this regard Trautmann3 states
teria to assess the claims of historians, the long-standing consensus of experts ‘The historical study of a document
Schneider30 has proposed a set of guide- must be respected and accepted. The always involves careful attention to the
lines for an ‘objective historian’ or ‘con- constraint against ‘cherry-picking’ im- questions of what group of people pro-
scientious historian’ as follows: plies that historians cannot pick isolated duced the text and for what purpose it
evidences or an isolated scholar’s opi- was written.’
(1) She must treat sources with appropri- nions to contradict the settled consensus The motivation of the authors of the
ate reservations. of the relevant expert scholars. post-Rig Vedic Saṃhitas and Brāhmaṇas
(2) She must not dismiss counterevi- For example, linguists cannot cite the was to transmit details of the perfor-
dence without scholarly consideration. views of an archaeologist who supports mance and meanings of Vedic rituals
(3) She must be even-handed in her AIT/AMT when referring to material from one generation to another. Thus,
treatment of evidence and eschew evidences. Conversely, archaeologists taking the motives of historical actors
‘cherry-picking’. cannot cite the view of a linguist who into account, it follows that Vedic rituals
(4) She must clearly indicate any specu- does not support AIT/AMT when refer- are the most important evidences in the
lation. ring to linguistic evidences. Vedic ritual texts. This is an important
(5) She must not mistranslate documents G4. She must clearly indicate any guideline and its significance for the
or mislead by omitting parts of doc- speculation. Aryan Debate will be developed further
uments. A4. The above guideline implies that below.
(6) She must weigh the authenticity of historians must ensure that the consensus
all accounts, not merely those that among specialist scholars is based on
contradict her favored view. evidences and proper justifications. They Credible framework to assess
(7) She must take the motives of histori- must highlight any speculation, if evidences in the Aryan Debate
cal actors into consideration. present. This is a crucial guideline and
its importance will be seen later. From the above discussion it is clear that
G5. She must not mistranslate docu- Trautmann’s criteria are entirely compat-
Compatibility of Trautmann’s ments or mislead by omitting parts of ible with the guidelines for a ‘objective
criteria with the guidelines for an documents. historian’ that are based on Evans’ de-
‘objective historian’ A5. The primary documents in the scription of the ‘generally accepted stan-
Aryan Debate are the Vedic texts. Histo- dards of historical scholarship’. Taken
We now address the question of how rians have not claimed any expertise in together, they form a credible framework
well Trautmann’s criteria address the translating or interpreting these texts. to assess evidences in the Aryan Debate.
guidelines for an ‘objective historian’. Therefore, as long as historians accept Therefore, all future discussions of the
Guideline 1 (G1). She must treat the settled consensus interpretations of Aryan Debate must adhere to these stan-
sources with appropriate reservations. Sanskrit scholars (and of scientists for dards. If not, these standards provide a
A1. Trautmann’s criteria imply that the scientific aspects) of Vedic texts, the simple method to identify the transgres-
only the long-standing settled consensus above guideline is satisfied. sions. In particular, historians cannot ac-
among the relevant specialist scholars G6. She must weigh the authenticity of cept the conclusions of studies that
are to be accepted. This implicitly all accounts, not merely those that con- violate their explicitly stated criteria. We
ensures caution in the treatment of evi- tradict her favored view. discuss some implications of adhering to
dences, since these conclusions have A6. According to Trautmann’s criteria, historians’ methodology in the Aryan
withstood the critical scrutiny of genera- historians must accept the authenticity of Debate.
tions of expert scholars from different all long-standing consensus because they
countries. have withstood the critical scrutiny of
G2. She must not dismiss counterevi- generations of expert scholars. However, Fundamental discoveries in the
dence without scholarly consideration. Trautmann3 also states ‘Unfortunately, the Aryan Debate
A2. All evidences and conclusions that facts of ancient history are not hard facts,
satisfy Trautmann’s criteria must be ac- for a couple of reasons. One of them has Trautmann3 described three important
cepted by historians even when they lead to do with the many steps in the scholarly ‘fundamental discoveries’ that satisfied
to contradictory conclusions. For exam- processing of such facts before they his criteria and represented long-standing
ple, Trautmann described three ‘funda- become recognized facts – there can be consensus. We recently demonstrated in
mental discoveries’: (i) Indo-European disagreement about every stage of such detail that the consensus on Vedic rituals
language family, (ii) Dravidian language processing, and hence the fact it estab- also satisfied Trautmann’s criteria28.
family, and (iii) Indus Valley Civiliza- lishes.’ Therefore, it becomes necessary Therefore, currently, the following four
tion. They were accepted by him even to scrutinize the process of establishing ‘fundamental discoveries’ are central to
though they lead to contradictory conclu- historical facts, including the number and the Aryan Debate:

CURRENT SCIENCE, VOL. 118, NO. 4, 25 FEBRUARY 2020 665

This content downloaded from

47.31.145.118 on Tue, 31 Dec 2024 09:37:21 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
HISTORICAL NOTES
• Discovery of the Indo-European lan- Currently, Sanskrit scholars who sup- Cultural practices associated with
guage family (1786). port AIT/AMT use dates obtained from Vrātyas across Indo-European
• Discovery of the Dravidian language linguistics to study Vedic rituals. This cultures
family (1816). approach is fundamentally flawed be-
• Consensus on the date of ~3000 BC for cause consensus based on evidences in The subject of Vrātyas has been studied
Vedic rituals (texts) (1931). one discipline is extrapolated beyond its by Sanskrit scholars for more than 150
• Discovery of the Indus Civilization domain to interpret evidences in another years36,38–41. According to Edholm39,
(1924). discipline, where a different consensus ‘That the ancient Indian Vrātya continues
exists. It clearly violates Trautmann’s to engage scholars, and rightly so, is
We have shown elsewhere28,32 that, start- criteria that the settled consensus (in demonstrated by two recent publica-
ing from Caland33 in 1931 till date, sev- each discipline) must be respected. In tions…’ He ends his article with the
eral Sanskrit scholars5,33–37 who support addition, in this instance, it leads to statement ‘A complex subject such as
AIT/AMT have also interpreted the most Sanskrit scholars disrespecting their own that of the Vrātya allows for a plurality
important Vedic ritual days (ekāṣṭaka, interpretations of Vedic rituals. of interpretations.’
Mahāvrata, Mahāśivarātri, winter sols- We propose our solution to the above We will not venture to make any non-
tice, etc.) to ~3000 BC, similar to scien- question. Whenever specialist scholars scientific contributions into the discus-
tists who oppose AIT/AMT. No scientist refer to the linguistic aspects of Vedic sions on Vrātyas. However, our contribu-
has analysed these settled interpretations texts they must use the dates that follow tions focus on the calendar features
to ~1000 BC. It is important to note that from the consensus among linguists, i.e. linked to the cultural practices of the
scientific analyses of the interpretations ~1500 BC for Rig Veda and ~1000 BC for Vrātyas.
of the most important Vedic ritual days the Vedic ritual texts. On the contrary, We briefly summarize the views of
are in the professional domain of scien- whenever specialist scholars refer to the Sanskrit scholars on Vrātyas36,38–41. They
tists. contents of the Vedic texts, e.g. religious were all-male aggressive groups or war-
Since the most important Vedic rituals practices, cultural practices, etc. they rior bands who would raid neighbouring
represent the cyclical year, their proper must use the dates that follow from the territories. Their rituals were closely as-
understanding requires combined exper- consensus on Vedic rituals among sociated with winter solstice. Pañcavimśa
tise of Sanskrit scholars and scientists32. Sanskrit scholars and scientists, i.e. Brāhmaṇa33 states that the Vrātyas per-
Since they are in agreement, it is appro- ~3000 BC for Vedic ritual texts. This way formed a 61-day ritual that lasted all of
priate to refer to it as the ‘joint consen- Trautmann’s criteria are adhered to as the season Śiśira. Since Śiśira was the
sus’. It is clear that the joint-consensus the relevant settled consensus is res- first season after winter solstice, it fol-
on Vedic rituals transcends support or pected. To further illustrate this lows that this ritual began at winter sols-
opposition to AIT/AMT, making it the aspect, we discuss two specific examples tice33. Other scholars have noted a close
most credible consensus in the Aryan below. connection between Vrātya rituals and
Debate. ekāṣṭaka and/or Mahavrata days36,40.
Some scholars have found similarities
Origins of Śaivism and between cultural practices of Vrātyas and
Two dates for the Vedic texts – Mahāśivarātri practices in other Indo-European cul-
implications for specialist tures, including Germanic and Roman
scholars We have discussed the origins of cultures36,40. Kershaw40 has referred to
Śaivism and Mahāśivarātri in detail Vrātya rituals that began on ekāṣṭaka and
From the four fundamental discoveries, it elsewhere17,32. Briefly, we have pointed similar practices among Germanic tribes.
follows that there are two different dates out that in the interpretations of several However, their interpretations use dates
for the Vedic texts. The consensus Sanskrit scholars (who support AIT/ of ~1000–800 BC for the Vedic ritual
among linguists leads to dates of around AMT), Śaivism and Mahāśivarātri origi- texts derived from linguistics for Vrātya
~1500 BC for the Rig Veda and ~1000 BC nated in the Brāhmaṇa period. In particu- cultural practices, implying a common
for the Saṃhita and Brāhmaṇa ritual lar, Mahāśivarātri was celebrated just Indo-European cultural practice that
texts. In contrast, the consensus among before winter solstice when it originated. spread from somewhere in Eurasia.
Sanskrit scholars and scientists leads to This directly leads to ~3000 BC for the We see that Sanskrit scholars have
dates of around ~3000 BC for the same Brāhmaṇa period. linked Vrātya cultural practices to Śiśira,
Vedic ritual texts28,32. It follows that the However, Sanskrit scholars used dates ekāṣṭaka, Mahāvrata, etc. in the Vedic
Rig Veda is older than ~3000 BC. of ~800 BC for the Brāhmaṇa period on texts33,37,40,41. Mahāvrata was an impor-
The fact that there is consensus on two the basis of linguistic evidences32. It is tant ritual day that was just before the
different dates raises the question regard- readily evident that linguistics has no last day of the (lunar) year that ended at
ing the date of Vedic texts specialist direct relevance to the study of the ori- winter solstice. Ekāṣṭaka was the eighth
scholars should use in their studies. We gins of Śaivism and Mahāśivarātri, day after full moon of the month
note that archaeologists, geologists, which is based on the contents of the of Māgha and was very close to winter
geneticists, etc. do not have any expertise Vedic texts. It is incorrect to refer to solstice, which leads to dates of
to choose between the two dates for the dates obtained from linguistic evidences ~3000 BC (ref. 17). These seasons and
Vedas. Further, their choice cannot be when their own interpretations of lunar days (based on nakṣatra months)
arbitrary and must be consistent with Mahāśivarātri give an internal date (of are purely Indian calendrical features
Trautmann’s criteria. ~3000 BC) that is directly relevant. that are not present in other Indo-

666 CURRENT SCIENCE, VOL. 118, NO. 4, 25 FEBRUARY 2020

This content downloaded from

47.31.145.118 on Tue, 31 Dec 2024 09:37:21 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 HISTORICAL NOTES
European cultures. Therefore, the correct AMT have also implied cultural trans- sensus on either the place or date of PIE
interpretation is that Vrātya cultural mission out of ~3000 BC India into origins. It must be recognized that all
practices linked to ekāṣṭaka, Mahāvrata, ~2000–1000 BC Eurasia and Europe. theories of PIE origins are speculative
etc. in the Brāhmaṇa texts actually date The implications can hardly be over- because of the absence of contemporane-
to ~3000 BC. These are the dates that are stated. ous evidences. In the Indian context, they
directly relevant to the Vrātya cultural While the proponents of AIT/AMT refer to time periods that pre-date the Rig
practices and not those from linguistics. have interpreted common words, etc. Veda.
We get a completely different picture found in several Indo-European cultures Unfortunately, speculative theories of
when the correct date for Vrātya cultural to indicate late movement of Indo- PIE origins have become the framework
practices is used. Prima facie, it suggests European speaking peoples into India, to interpret the stronger evidences. Clear-
a transmission of cultural practices asso- opponents of AIT/AMT have interpreted ly, this is not the most credible method to
ciated with Vrātyas around ~3000 BC or them to indicate cultural transmission out formulate theories. (We recall that one of
even earlier (if Rig Veda is also to be of India. For example, the Mitanni trea- the guidelines for an ‘objective historian’
considered) to 2nd or 1st millennium BC ties dated to ~1500 BC contain references is that ‘she must clearly indicate any spec-
cultural practices in Eurasia and Europe. to Gods and words found in the Rig ulation’.) An alternate approach would be
In this regard, Anthony and Brown41 Veda. They have been interpreted by to formulate theories (that may be limi-
studied remains of dog bones in an arc- AIT/AMT proponents to imply lower ted in scope) centred on robust evi-
haeological site in southern Russia, and dates for the Rig Veda and Sanskrit lan- dences. This approach is adopted below.
interpreted it to be similar to the cultural guage. In contrast, opponents of AIT/ As discussed earlier, the joint consen-
practice of Vrātyas and other Indo- AMT have interpreted them as evidence sus on dates of ~3000 BC for Vedic
European aggressive all-male bands. for cultural transmission out of India. rituals transcends support (from Sanskrit
They date these findings to ~1500– Bryant1 provides a detailed discussion on scholars) or opposition (from scientists)
1900 BC. Edholm39 and Witzel42 refer to the Mitanni treaties. to AIT/AMT, making it the most credible
this inference. However, it follows from the above consensus in the Aryan Debate. We also
Anthony and Brown41 specifically discussion on Vratya cultural practices recall that one of the important guide-
state ‘Among the Śvapaca were the that all contested claims of common fea- lines for an ‘objective historian’ is that
people called the Vrātyas. They were tures in various Indo-European cultures she ‘must take the motives of historical
known for performing a mid-winter cer- dated to ~2000–1000 BC can now be actors into consideration’30. As discussed
emony called Ekāṣṭaka at the winter sols- credibly (since is also includes the scho- earlier, this guideline implies that Vedic
tice…’. As mentioned earlier, ekāṣṭaka larship of Sanskrit scholars who support rituals are the most important evidences
coincided with winter solstice around AIT/AMT) interpreted to be the result of in the Vedic ritual texts. This is consis-
~3000 BC. Thus, their interpretation, con- cultural transmission out of ~3000 BC tent with the views of Sanskrit scholars
trary to their claim, actually provides India. and the Vedic texts themselves32.
archaeological evidence for transmission Based on these strong foundations of
of Vrātya cultural practices around Vedic rituals, we propose the Sanskrit in
~3000 BC to Eurasian cultural practices Sanskrit in Indus Civilization Indus Civilization Theory (SICT), accor-
~1500–1900 BC. Theory – new theory based on ding to which Sanskrit was spoken in the
We note that Aitareya Brāhmaṇa verse Vedic ritual texts Indus Civilization as evidenced by the
AB 8.14 refers to the Uttarakuru region fact that Sanskrit scholars and scientists
that Sanskrit scholars have interpreted to At present, the main theories to discuss have interpreted the most important
refer to regions beyond the Himalayas43. the Indo-Aryan controversy are AIT/ Vedic rituals to ~3000 BC. Since the Rig
After studying the mathematics of AMT and the Out of India Theory1–6. Veda is older that the Vedic ritual texts,
Vedic fire-altars (Agnicayana), Seiden- The primary emphasis of these theories it follows Sanskrit is older than
berg44,45 concluded that (i) it was older is on the origins of the Indo-European ~3000 BC. However, because there is no
than the mathematics of 1700 BC Baby- language family. There are two possibili- robust consensus on the date of the Rig
lon and (ii) this mathematical knowledge ties within AIT/AMT for the origins of Veda, it is difficult to be specific about
was transmitted to Babylon and Greece. the Proto-Indo-European language the actual date of the origins of Sanskrit.
Though Seidenberg was unaware, we (PIE)20, with (i) the Anatolian hypothesis Secondly, the geographical area re-
now know that the joint consensus proposing early ~7000 BC origins of PIE ferred to in the Vedic texts are mostly
among Sanskrit scholars and scientists in Anatolia, and (ii) the Steppe hypothe- northwest India, between the Indus and
dates Agnicayana to ~3000 BC (refs 28, sis proposing a ~4000 BC origin of PIE in Sarasvati rivers, and include the region
32). This confirms Seidenberg’s dates Eurasia. In contrast, the OIT proposes covered by the five Punjab rivers. This
and supports his conclusion of transmis- that India is the homeland of the Indo- geographical region is also part of the
sion of mathematical knowledge out of European language family and Sanskrit Indus Civilization. It follows that SICT
~3000 BC India to 1700 BC Mesopotamia is much older than ~1500 BC (refs 1, 2). implies a correlation between Indus civi-
and later Greece18. The above theories overemphasize the lization and Vedic culture.
Thus, while suggestions of cultural oldest time periods for which actual evi- SICT supports the views of several
transmission out of ~3000 BC India have dences are thin or non-existent. For archaeologists that the Indus culture was
been made earlier, from the discussion example, the Anatolian and Steppe hypo- Aryan19–27. For example, Renfrew20
on Vrātyas we see, that Sanskrit scholars theses differ by 3000 years as to the date states ‘It is difficult to see what is partic-
who are the primary supporters of AIT/ of PIE origins. That is, there is no con- ularly non-Aryan about the IVC.’ Schaffer

CURRENT SCIENCE, VOL. 118, NO. 4, 25 FEBRUARY 2020 667

This content downloaded from

47.31.145.118 on Tue, 31 Dec 2024 09:37:21 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
HISTORICAL NOTES
and Lichtenstein23 state ‘The archaeolo- Sanskrit-speaking civilization, but rather terpreted in the framework of speculative
gical record and ancient oral and literate states that Sanskrit was definitely one of theories. Therefore, any theory of PIE
traditions of South Asia are now con- the languages spoken. Suggestions that origins must incorporate the main fea-
verging with significant implications for other languages (e.g. Dravidian, Austro- tures of SICT when discussing evidences
South Asian cultural history.’ Asiatic, any other Indo-European lan- and events in India later than ~3000 BC.
Regarding the religion of the Indus guage, etc.) were spoken in the Indus Any theory that does not do so must be
Civilization, Dhavalikar25 states ‘The Civilization can be accepted if proven, rejected as incorrect, as it would ignore
most important feature of the Vedic reli- but cannot negate the joint consensus the most credible consensus in the Aryan
gion is fire worship, and the same seems that Sanskrit was definitely spoken. Debate.
to be the case with the religion of the The same arguments apply to the cul-
Late Harappans. Well made fire altars tural aspects of the Indus Civilization.
have been discovered in the excavations That is, we can state that Vedic culture Sanskrit in Indus Civilization
at Bhagwanpura and other Late Harappan was definitely part of the Indus Civiliza- Theory and genetic evidences
settlements. Fire worship was also in tion without asserting that the entire
vogue in the Urban Harappan times as is Indus Civilization was Vedic. Recently, studies based on ancient DNA
evidence from those at Kalibangan and However, SICT is silent on questions have made claims to participate in the
Lothal.’ We note that it is not an isolated that still arise. For example, the question Aryan Debate46–48. At present, there is no
view and several archaeologists hold whether the Sanskrit language/Vedic cul- consensus on the conclusions from
similar views27. (In another aspect, arc- ture was restricted to an elite group or a genetics studies46–48. However, some
haeologists’ claims of Śiva worship in peripheral group, or whether it was the studies have made strong claims that we
the Indus Civilization correlate well with language/culture of majority of the popu- examine below in the framework of
Sanskrit scholars’ interpretations of Śiva lation cannot be answered by SICT. historical methodology in the Aryan De-
worship in Vedic texts32.) SICT is com- These are questions that archaeologists bate47,48.
patible with the above views of archaeo- and other scholars need to address. One of the main problems with ancient
logists. Most importantly, SICT is silent on DNA studies is that the conclusions have
Thirdly, SICT has important implica- the origins of the Indo-European lan- been reported by conflating the results
tions for future studies of the Indus Civi- guages. It is compatible with Indian ori- from genetics with linguistic hypotheses.
lization. As discussed earlier, specialist gin, modified Anatolian origin, or any The limitations of genetic studies are de-
scholars have to choose between two dif- other geographical origin of Indo-Euro- scribed by, for example, Haak et al.49
ferent dates for the Vedic texts. It is most pean languages as long as any such who state ‘the findings from ancient
improbable that scholars who study vari- theory recognizes that Sanskrit is older DNA are silent on the question of the
ous aspects of the Indus Civilization will than ~3000 BC. languages spoken by preliterate popula-
attempt to correlate their findings with It is readily compatible with the OIT, tions…’. Given this explicit acknowled-
linguistics. Rather, the attempt would be since it recognizes that Sanskrit was spo- gement of the limitations of ancient
to correlate their findings with the con- ken in the Indus Civilization. DNA studies, conflating the conclusions
tents of the Vedic texts. As discussed in It is also compatible with the Anato- from genetics with linguistic hypotheses
the previous section, in such a case the lian origins of PIE with some modifica- is without any basis and is purely specul-
dates of ~3000 BC for the Vedic ritual tions. The Anatolian hypothesis proposes ative and outside the professional domain
texts are the ones that are relevant. that PIE originated in Anatolia around of geneticists. This approach has several
Therefore, in future studies, archaeolog- ~7000 BC and spread20. In particular, it methodological problems as discussed
ists and other scholars need to refer to claims that some unknown Indo-Euro- briefly below.
the joint consensus on Vedic rituals, pean language (not Sanskrit) was spoken First, we cite from a recent judgment
rather than the consensus on linguistics, in the Indus Civilization. Later, in the of the Supreme Court of India29: ‘This
whenever they refer to the contents of 2nd millennium BC, the older Indo-Euro- Court in the case of Hazi Mohammad
Vedic texts. This also applies to Sanskrit pean language was replaced by Sanskrit Ekramul Haq v. State of W.B. concurred
scholars’ future evaluations of claims of by immigrants from Central Asia. This with the finding of the High Court in not
correlations between Indus Civilization hypothesis relies on the linguists’ date placing any reliance upon the evidence
and Vedic texts, especially because they for the Rig Veda of ~1500 BC. of an expert witness on the ground that
are a party to the joint consensus. However, the joint consensus on Vedic his evidence was merely an opinion un-
Fourthly, SICT accounts for the 3rd rituals needs to be incorporated. There- supported by any reasons.’ Another re-
millennium BC cultural contacts of Indus fore, if the Anatolian hypothesis is mod- cent judgment of the Supreme Court of
Civilization with regions beyond the ified to recognize that it was Sanskrit and India states50: ‘Mere assertion without
Himalaya as evidenced by references to not some unknown Indo-European lan- mentioning the data or basis is not evi-
Uttarakuru in the Brāhmaṇa texts and guage that was spoken in the Indus Civi- dence even if it comes from expert.’
other evidences, including interpretations lization, it readily becomes compatible Secondly, one of the guidelines for an
of Sanskrit scholars with regard to the with SIET. ‘objective historian’ is that ‘she must
transmission of cultural practices asso- An important aspect of SICT is that it clearly indicate any speculation’. It is
ciated with Vrātyas discussed above. separates the question of PIE origins clear that the core genetic results and the
It is also important to note what SICT from the discussions on later periods, i.e. speculative conflation with linguistic
does not say. It does not say that the after ~3000 BC. This separation is impor- hypotheses cannot be considered to have
Indus Civilization was an exclusively tant so that robust evidences are not in- the same credibility. Further, it follows

668 CURRENT SCIENCE, VOL. 118, NO. 4, 25 FEBRUARY 2020

This content downloaded from

47.31.145.118 on Tue, 31 Dec 2024 09:37:21 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 HISTORICAL NOTES
from Trautmann’s criteria that popula- sions. In contrast, geneticists have not part of the conclusions. This simply
tion geneticists are only responsible for proved their claims on the basis of genet- means that there was an influx from Cen-
conclusions within their professional ic evidences. They need to do so for their tral Asia into India in the 2nd millen-
domain, viz. genetics. claims to have independent validity. nium BC, of people who spoke an
Thirdly, archaeologist Klejn51 has re- It is clear that the contradiction be- unknown language, since ‘ancient DNA
cently discussed the shortcomings of the tween different scientific evidences is are silent on the question of the languag-
geneticists’ approach as follows: ‘My precipitated because of the unproven es spoken by preliterate populations’49.
main concern is that, to my mind, one speculative conflation of genetic results This can easily be shown to be compati-
should not directly apply conclusions with linguistic hypotheses. Thus, this ble with SICT.
from genetics to events in the develop- contradiction is artificial and not We recall that according to the joint
ment of language because there is no direct genuine. consensus on Vedic rituals, Sanskrit was
and inevitable dependence between Fifthly and more broadly, the specula- already spoken in India before ~3000 BC.
events in the life of languages, culture, tive claims of geneticists veer dangerous- The genetics data can be readily inter-
and physical structure (both anthropolog- ly close to what Romer (Nobel Prize in preted to imply that immigrants from
ical and genetic). They can coincide, but Economics, 2018) describes as a ‘failure Central Asia came to India around
often they all follow divergent paths. In mode of science’. Drawing parallels bet- ~1500 BC and were absorbed in the local
each case, the supposed coincidence ween string theory and macroeconomics, Sanskrit-speaking culture. That is, even
should be proved separately’. He further he states53 ‘A parallel with string theory though they spoke an unknown language
discusses this theme in an article titled from physics hints at a general failure when they arrived, in due course they
‘The Steppe hypothesis of Indo-Euro- mode of science that is triggered when merged into the local culture and became
pean origins remains to be proven’52. It is respect for highly regarded leaders Sanskrit speakers. We note that this
clear that geneticists need to prove their evolves into a deference to authority that process of assimilation has occurred
speculative conflation of genetics results displaces objective fact from its position several times in Indian history. The
with linguistic hypotheses for it to be ac- as the ultimate determinant of scientific above explanation is also consistent with
cepted by other scholars in the Aryan truth’. the consensus among archaeologists that
Debate. There is great danger that the specula- there is continuity in the archaeological
Fourthly, the speculative claims of tive claims of geneticists may be misin- record contrary to disruption implied by
geneticists lead to a (false) contradiction terpreted as scientific claims because AIT/AMT19–27.
between different scientific evidences. they are made by highly respected gene- Some geneticists are aware that ‘their
We have discussed in detail elsewhere ticists. Romer53 states that ‘an efficient (Indo-Aryan invasions’) very existence is
that evidences from astronomy (mostly defense of science will hold the most challenged by many archaeologists’47.
pertaining to calendar schemes that regu- highly regarded individuals to the high- Thus, if geneticists decide to participate
lated the performance of Vedic rituals) est standard of scientific conduct.’ This in the broader Aryan Debate, they need
and mathematics suggest that there is no criterion combined with Haak’s state- to consider all qualifying evidences (ac-
scientific basis for AIT/AMT17,18. The ment above implies that geneticists need cording to Trautmann’s criteria). In such
claims of geneticists in support of to be silent on the question of languages a case, the above explanation is plausible
AIT/AMT contradict the conclusions spoken by ancient peoples. since it accounts for several qualifying
from these scientific evidences. This At the very least, when speaking of evidences in the Aryan Debate.
would be a serious contradiction if it languages, geneticists must explicitly
were true. As mentioned earlier, the joint clarify that their speculative and unpro-
consensus dates the varied references to ven conflation of genetics results with Conclusion
the most important ritual days consistently linguistic hypotheses do not have the
to ~3000 BC. That is, the dates of same credibility and reliability as their Trautmann’s criteria to accept expert
~3000 BC are proved in several different genetics results alone. opinion in the Aryan Debate are compat-
ways and are robust28,32. For all the above reasons, scholars ible with Schneider’s guidelines for an
Regarding evidences from mathemat- cannot accept the results of the unwar- ‘objective historian’ that are based on the
ics, it is essential to note that Seiden- ranted conflation of genetics results with ‘generally accepted standards for histori-
berg44,45 proved his claims solely by linguistic hypotheses. Thus, all scholars cal scholarship’ described by Evans. To-
examining mathematical evidences. He only need to consider the conclusions gether they form a credible framework to
was a professor of pure mathematics (at reached solely from genetics data. An assess evidences in the Aryan Debate.
UC Berkeley, USA) and used the word important consequence that follows is We show, that Sanskrit scholars who
‘proved’ with the associated sense of re- that genetic studies cannot have any view support AIT/AMT have implied trans-
sponsibility. For example, he states44 ‘As on the joint consensus that Sanskrit is mission of cultural practices from
to the common source of Babylonian and older than ~3000 BC. ~3000 BC India to ~2000–1000 BC Eura-
Vedic mathematics, though at one point Some recent genetic studies suggest an sia. This tilts the debate on common
in the argument I used the word post- influx from Central Asia into India in the Gods, words, practices, etc. found in
ulate, I now regard my thesis as proved.’ 2nd millennium BC that has been con- several Indo-European cultures in favour
It is only after proving his claim by flated with linguistic theories to claim of transmission out of India. We propose
examining mathematical evidences that genetic evidence in support of AIT/ the SICT that rests on the robust consen-
Seidenberg referred to Jacobi’s higher AMT47,48. However, as discussed above, sus between Sanskrit scholars and scien-
chronology8 in support of his conclu- we need to consider only the genetics tists that Vedic rituals date to ~3000 BC.

CURRENT SCIENCE, VOL. 118, NO. 4, 25 FEBRUARY 2020 669

This content downloaded from

47.31.145.118 on Tue, 31 Dec 2024 09:37:21 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
HISTORICAL NOTES
All theories on the origins of Indo- 17. Prasanna, T. R. S., Indian J. Hist. Sci., 38. Heesterman, J. C., Indo-Iran. J., 1962, 6,
European languages must incorporate the 2011, 46, 573–610. 1–37.
main elements of SICT when discussing 18. Prasanna, T. R. S., Curr. Sci., 2012, 103, 39. Edholm, K., Electron. J. Vedic Stud.,
evidences from India later than 216–221. 2017, 24, 1–17.
19. Sankalia, H. D., Puratattva, 1975, 8, 72– 40. Kershaw, K., J. Indo-Euro. Stud., 2000.
~3000 BC. We discuss the methodologi-
86. 41. Anthony, D. W. and Brown, D. R., Paper
cal issues related to the claims of gene- 20. Renfrew, C., Archaeology and Lan- presented at the Roots of Europe – Lan-
ticists. We show SICT can accommodate guage: The Puzzle of Indo-European guage, Culture and Migrations Confe-
the results of recent genetic studies. Origins, Cambridge University Press, rence, University of Copenhagen,
Cambridge, UK, 1988. Denmark, 12–14 December 2012.
21. Lamberg-Karlovsky, C. C., Curr. Anth- 42. Witzel, M., Beyond the flight of the fal-
1. Bryant, E., The Quest for the Origins of ropol., 2002, 43, 63–88. con, Lecture given at International Col-
Vedic Culture, Oxford University Press, 22. Danino, M., Man Environ., 2003, 28, 21– lege for Post Graduate Buddhist Studies,
Oxford, 2001. 32. Tokoyo, Japan, 2018; http://www.icabs.
2. Bryant, E. F. and Patton, L. L. (eds), The 23. Shaffer, J. G. and Lichtenstein, D. A., In ac.jp/wp/iibs_html/abstract_Witzel.pdf
Indo-Aryan Controversy, Routledge, The Indo-Aryan Controversy (eds 43. Keith, A. B., Rigveda Brāhmaṇas, Har-
London, UK, 2005. Bryant, E. F. and Patton, L. L.), Rout- vard University Press, Cambridge, Mas-
3. Trautmann, T. R. (ed.), The Aryan ledge, London, UK, 2005, pp. 75–104. sachusetts, 1920.
Debate, Oxford University Press, New 24. Chakrabarti, D. K., The Oxford Compa- 44. Seidenberg, A., Arch. Hist. Exact Sci.,
Delhi, 2005. nion to Indian Archaeology, Oxford Uni- 1978, 18, 301–342.
4. Klostermaier, K. K., A Survey of Hin- versity Press, Oxford, 2006. 45. Seidenberg, A., Arch. Hist. Exact Sci.,
duism, SUNY Press, Albany, NY, USA, 25. Dhavalikar, M. K., Ann. Bhandarkar 1962, 1, 488–527.
2007. Orient. Res. Inst., 2006, 87, 1–37. 46. Mondal, M. et al., Hum. Genet., 2017,
5. Witzel, M., Electron. J. Vedic Stud., 26. Joshi, J. P., Harappan Architecture and 136, 499–510.
2001, 7, 3–107. Civil Engineering, Rupa, New Delhi, 47. Silva, M. et al., BMC Evol. Biol., 2017,
6. Kazanas, N., J. Indo-Eur. Stud., 2002, 2008. 17, 88.
30, 275–334. 27. Coningham, R. and Young, R., The Arc- 48. Narasimhan, V. M. et al., Science, 2019,
7. Tilak, B. G., Orion, Pune, 1893. haeology of South Asia: From the Indus 365, 7487.
8. Jacobi, H., Indian Antiquary, 1894, 23, to Asoka, c. 6500 BCE–200 CE, Cam- 49. Haak, W. et al., Nature, 2015, 522, 207–
154–159. bridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 211.
9. Dikshit, S. B., Indian Antiquary, 1895, 2015. 50. Singhvi, G. S. and Dattu, H. L. (Justices),
24, 245–246. 28. Prasanna, T. R. S., Curr. Sci., 2018, 115, Ramesh Chandra Agrawal vs Regency
10. Sengupta, P. C., Ancient Indian Astro- 1978–1985. Hospital Ltd. and Ors, 2009, Civil
nomy, University of Calcutta Press, Cal- 29. Sinha, S. B. and Verma, D., (Justices), Appeal No. 5991 of 2002.
cutta, 1947. Malay Kumar Ganguly vs Sukumar 51. Klejn, L. et al., Eur. J. Archaeol., 2017,
11. Sen, S. N. and Shukla, K. S. (eds), History Mukherjee and Others, 2009, 9 SCC 221. 21, 3–17.
of Astronomy in India, Indian National 30. Schneider, W. E., Yale Law Rev., 2001, 52. Klejn, L., Acta Archaeol., 2018, 88, 193–
Science Academy, New Delhi, 1985, 110, 1531–1545. 204.
2000. 31. Evans, R. J., Lying about Hitler: History, 53. Romer, P., Commons Memorial Lecture
12. Abhyankar, K. D., In Scientific Heritage Holocaust, and the David Irving Trial, of the Omicron Delta Epsilon Society, 5
of India (eds Subbarayappa, B. V. and Basic Books, New York, USA, 2001. January 2016; https://paulromer.net/
Murthy, S. R. N.), The Mythic Society, 32. Prasanna, T. R. S., Curr. Sci., 2015, 109, trouble-with-macroeconomics-update/WP-
Bangalore, 1988, pp. 10–14. 1882–1888. Trouble.pdf
13. Abhyankar, K. D., Bull. Astron. Soc. 33. Caland, W., Pañcavimśa Brāhmaṇa,
India, 1998, 26, 61–66. Asiatic Society of Bengal, Calcutta, 1931.
14. Kak, S., Indian J. Hist. Sci., 1993, 28, 34. Long, B., J. Orient. Inst. Baroda, 1972,
T. R. S. Prasanna is in the Department of
15–34. 21, 15–38.
15. Iyengar, R. N., Indian J. Hist. Sci., 2008, 35. Witzel, M., BEI, 1984, 2, 213–279. Metallurgical Engineering and Materials
43, 1–27. 36. Falk, H., Bruderschaft und Wuerfelspiel, Science, Indian Institute of Technology
16. Iyengar, R. N., Indian J. Hist. Sci., 2011, Freiburg, 1986. Bombay, Powai, Mumbai 400 076, India.
46, 23–39. 37. Einoo, S., J. Asiatique, 2005, 293, 102. e-mail: [email protected]

670 CURRENT SCIENCE, VOL. 118, NO. 4, 25 FEBRUARY 2020

This content downloaded from

47.31.145.118 on Tue, 31 Dec 2024 09:37:21 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms