{"id":145,"date":"2019-08-22T04:04:44","date_gmt":"2019-08-22T04:04:44","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/icp02.epgpbooks.inflibnet.ac.in\/?post_type=chapter&p=145"},"modified":"2019-08-22T04:22:31","modified_gmt":"2019-08-22T04:22:31","slug":"issues-in-the-protohistory-of-india-and-pakistan-ii-the-sarasvati","status":"publish","type":"chapter","link":"https:\/\/ebooks.inflibnet.ac.in\/icp02\/chapter\/issues-in-the-protohistory-of-india-and-pakistan-ii-the-sarasvati\/","title":{"rendered":"Issues in the Protohistory of India and Pakistan II :The Sarasvati"},"content":{"raw":"
\"epgp<\/a>\r\n<\/span><\/div>\r\n \r\n\r\n \r\n\r\n \r\n
\r\n\r\n \r\n

\u00a01. Introduction\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\r\n \r\n

When in the early 1920s, archaeologists discovered at Harappa and Mohenjo Daro the first urban growth of the Indian subcontinent, they named it \u2015Indus Valley\u2016 or \u2015Indus\u2016 Civilization, as it was thought to extend no farther than the Indus basin, with a few minor sites in Baluchistan. The name stuck, although with an alternative: the \u2015Harappan\u2016 Civilization, in accordance with the archaeological tradition of naming a culture after the first type site to come to light.<\/p>\r\n \r\n

John Marshall, who then directed the Archaeological Survey of India (and later the excavations at Mohenjo Daro), suspected that the Harappan Civilization extended eastward beyond the Indus river and its tributaries. However, the task of proving this conjecture was left to the famous and indefatigable explorer, Mark Aurel Stein. In 1940, at the age of 78, he led an expedition to the States of Bikaner and Bahawalpur (the former now part of Rajasthan, the latter now part of Pakistan\u2018s Cholistan desert). Stein\u2018s fascination for inhospitable regions is probably what drew him to the Great Indian Desert\u2018s desolate landscape of endless sand dunes, and to the wide valley of the Ghaggar (and its continuation, generally known as \u2015Hakra\u2016 from Cholistan to the Rann of Kachchh). But as a Sanskritist, he was also intrigued by the legend of the lost Sarasvat\u012b; the title of his 1942 paper, which gave a brief account of his findings, makes that clear: \u2015A Survey of Ancient Sites along the \u2017Lost\u2018 Sarasvat\u012b River\u2016.1 (He wrote a more detailed report the next year, which remained unpublished until 1989.2).<\/p>\r\n \r\n

Like most nineteenth-century explorers of the region, Stein was struck by \u2015the width of its dry bed within Bikaner territory [i.e., downstream of Hanumangarh]; over more than 100 miles [160 km], it is nowhere less than 2 miles [3.2 km] and in places 4 miles [6.4 km] or more.\u2016 He also recorded numerous mounds along the bed of the Ghaggar-Hakra: \u2015The large number of these ancient sites contrasts strikingly with the very few small villages still on the same ground.\u20163 The region had clearly supported a much larger population in the past, an observation already made a century earlier by British topographers and geologists.<\/p>\r\n \r\n

It is along the Hakra\u2018s dry course in Bahawalpur that Aurel Stein established for the first time the existence of sites related to Harappan culture. Taking all periods together, he identified some eighty new sites\u2014a rich harvest, and the last of his considerable contributions to the archaeology of the subcontinent.<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

2.<\/strong>The Sarasvat\u012b Riddle<\/strong><\/p>\r\n \r\n

Before we proceed with archaeological discoveries in the region, we must pause and ask why, in the first place, geographers, explorers, Indologists and archaeologists had come to identify the Ghaggar-Hakra\u2018s dry bed with the Sarasvat\u012b. There are two simple reasons for this, perfectly summarized by Aurel Stein himself:<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

In at least three passages of the <\/span>Rigveda<\/em> mentioning the Sarasvat\u012b, a river corresponding to the present Sarsuti and Ghaggar is meant. For this we have conclusive evidence in the famous hymn, the \u2015Praise of the rivers\u2016 (<\/span>Nadistuti<\/em> [10.75) which, with a precision unfortunately quite exceptional in Vedic texts, enumerates the <\/span>Sarasvati <\/em>correctly between the<\/span> Yamuna <\/em>(Jumna) in the east and the<\/span> Sutudri <\/em>or Sutlej in the west.4<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

This mention of a \u2015mighty\u2016 Sarasvat\u012b between the Yamun\u0101 and the Sutlej is what convinced nineteenth-century Indologists\u2014long before the discovery of Harappan sites\u2014that the Ghaggar-Hakra, which had been explored by several British surveyors, topographers and military agents, was a relic of the Vedic Sarasvat\u012b. Many eighteenth- and nineteenth-century maps reflect the consensus among scholars like H.H. Wilson (1840), Louis Vivien de Saint-Martin (1855), F. Max M\u00fcller (1859), C.F. Oldham (1874), M. Monier Williams (1875), A. Weber (1878), Julius Eggeling (1882), R.D. Oldham (1886), among many others.<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

The second reason is a persistent traditional memory of the \u2015lost river\u2016 in Haryana and Punjab. A small stream flowing down from the Shivalik Hills (the \u2015present Sarsuti,\u2016 as Stein referred to it), numerous holy sites connected to Sarasvat\u012b in the Kurukshetra region, the mention of the river in this same location across much ancient Sanskrit literature\u2014from the <\/span>Br\u0101hmanas <\/em>to the<\/span> Mah\u0101bh\u0101rata <\/em>and several<\/span> Pur\u0101nas<\/em>\u2014all concur to establish its existence there in some bygone age. (The tradition of an invisible Sarasvat\u012b at the <\/span>Triven\u012b<\/em> Sangam<\/em> of Allahabad is a much later one.) The Mah\u0101bh\u0101rata, for instance, not only locates the Sarasvat\u012b between the Yamun\u0101 and the Sutlej, but also describes the river as getting \u2015lost in the desert,\u2016 which matches its gradual desiccation.<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

3. Further Explorations<\/strong><\/p>\r\n \r\n

World War II and India\u2018s Partition delayed further the search for Harappan sites in what we can now call the Sarasvat\u012b Valley, or, more appropriately, the Sarasvat\u012b basin. It was only in 1950-52 that the archaeologist Amalananda Ghosh followed in Stein\u2018s footsteps, exploring what was now the Indian side of the Ghaggar-Hakra\u2018s bed. Ghosh identified 25 sites displaying a \u2015true Harappa culture\u2016\u2014the easternmost being Kalibangan. He rightly suspected that more sites would come to light further east, and concluded in the meantime that \u2015the valleys of the Sarasvat\u012b and the Drishadvat\u012b must be regarded as very rich indeed in archaeological remains.\u20165 (The Vedic Drishadvat\u012b river has been identified by most scholars with the Chautang, which flowed south of the Ghaggar, joining it downstream of Kalibangan, near today\u2018s Suratgarh in northern Rajasthan).<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

While Marc Aurel Stein will be remembered for being the first to identify Harappan sites in what is now Cholistan in Pakistan, Amalananda Ghosh will earn the same honour in northern Rajasthan.<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

Since the 1960s, further explorations of the region (including India\u2018s portion of the Punjab and the Chautang\u2018s course in Haryana) by Katy F. Dalal, K.N. Dikshit, J.P. Joshi, Madhu Bala, Jassu Ram, Suraj Bhan, Jim Shaffer, R.S. Bisht, Manmohan Kumar, Vivek Dangi, Parveen Kumar, R.N. Singh, Vasant Shinde, among other archaeologists, have brought to light hundreds of sites related to various phases of Harappan culture, the best known of which include Kalibangan, Mitathal, Banawali, Rakhigarhi and Bhirrana.<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

From the 1950s, parallel surveys have been taking place in Gujarat by S.R. Rao (who discovered the famous port town of Lothal in 1954), followed by J.P. Joshi (who in 1966 discovered the major site of Dholavira in the Rann of Kachchh) and many others. Harappan sites were later identified as far south as the Tapti in Maharashtra.<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

On the Pakistani side of the Ghaggar-Hakra valley, Mohammad Rafique Mughal retraced Aurel Stein\u2018s explorations and in the 1970s surveyed 363 pre-urban, urban and post-urban sites of the Harappan tradition in Cholistan alone, a rich harvest that changed forever our understanding of this civilization.6<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

4.Sarasvat\u012b vs. Indus<\/strong><\/p>\r\n \r\n

As a result of those explorations, its total extent is now thought to be over one million square kilometres. In 1999, archaeologist Gregory L. Possehl listed some 2,600 sites7 covering distinct phases, generally called \u2015Early\u2016 (or pre-urban), \u2015Mature\u2016 (or urban) and \u2015Late\u2016 (or post-urban),8 which correspond roughly to the epochs 3500-2700, 2600-1900 and 1900-1300 BCE.<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

Table 1 summarizes a more recent count in the Sarasvat\u012b basin; we should keep in mind that many sites have two or all three phases, so that the actual geographical count will be less than the total shown in the last column\u2014probably between 1,500 and 2,000.<\/span><\/p>\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n\"\"\r\n

Table 1. Distribution of Harappan sites in the Sarasvat\u012b basin, adapted from a list compiled by S.P. Gupta (by Michel Danino, 2010, with inputs from G.L. Possehl and M. Rafique Mughal).9<\/p>\r\n \r\n

Let us now look at Table 2, which covers all regions of the now extended Harappan civilization:<\/p>\r\n\"\"\r\n

\r\n

Table 2. Overall distribution of Harappan sites (by Michel Danino, 2010).<\/p>\r\n \r\n

The same caveat applies: the grand total of 3,781 sites (which in 2015 may need to be updated to some 4,000) may translate to between 2,000 and 2,500 actual settlements. Be that as it may, we notice that the 360 \u2015Sarasvat\u012b sites\u2016 of the Mature (i.e., urban) phase account for 32 per cent or nearly a third of all sites belonging to that phase: the region was plainly another heartland of the Harappan civilization. The proportion rises to 62 per cent for the Early Phase and 86 per cent for the Late Phase, before and after the collapse of the urban order.<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

(It should be added that Possehl\u2018s gazetteer of Harappan sites or the above tables conflate sites of cultures showing sufficient Harappan contact, but which may not be full-fledged Harappan, such as the Sorath domain (in today\u2018s Saurashtra) or the Kulli domain (today\u2018s Baluchistan); archaeologists are still debating the extent to which those regional cultures may be regarded as an integral part of the Harappan civilization.)<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

If, then, 360 Mature sites were located in the basin of the Sarasvat\u012b, should the Harappan civilization not be renamed \u2015Indus-Sarasvat\u012b civilization\u2016? Such was the designation proposed by the archaeologist S.P. Gupta in 1989. Although it is imperfect\u2014since it still leaves out most of Gujarat\u2018s 310 Mature Harappan sites, a third heartland\u2014it is nevertheless more inclusive than the limitative \u2015Indus civilization.\u2016<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

Recently, British archaeologist Jane McIntosh commented on the discoveries of Mughal and others in these words:<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

This work revealed an incredibly dense concentration of sites, along the dried-up course of a river that could be identified as the \u2015Saraswati\u2016 ... Suddenly it became apparent that the \u2015Indus\u2016 Civilization was a misnomer\u2014although the Indus had played a major role in the rise and development of the civilization, the \u2015lost Saraswati\u2016 River, judging by the density of settlement along its banks, had contributed an equal or greater part to its prosperity.<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

Which led her to the following conclusion on the issue of terminology:<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

Many people today refer to this Early state as the \u2015Indus-Saraswati Civilization\u2016 and continuing references [in her book] to the \u2015Indus Civilization\u2016 should be seen as an abbreviation in which the \u2015Saraswati\u2016 is implied.10<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

Whatever name we may choose to give it\u2014other proposals include \u2015Sindhu-Sarasvat\u012b\u2016 and \u2015Sarasvat\u012b-Sindhu\u2016\u2014its debt to the vanished river is now archaeologically established. As the archaeologist V.N. Misra put it in 1993, \u2015The large number of protohistoric settlements, dating from <\/span>c.<\/em> 4000 BC to 1500 BC, could have flourished along this river only if it was flowing perennially.\u201611<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

Let us clarify that highlighting the Sarasvat\u012b\u2018s contribution to the Harappan civilization by no means belittles the Indus. It simply points to a civilization with two major lifelines rather than one, and several heartlands, which has led archaeologists to view this civilization more and more as some sort of confederation of regional powers rather than a centralized empire as was once thought.<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

5.\u00a0<\/strong>Sarasvat\u012b and the Aryan Issue<\/strong><\/p>\r\n \r\n

While the identification of the bygone Sarasvat\u012b with the Ghaggar-Hakra has been a matter of consensus among scholars, as we saw above, Romila Thapar, Shereen Ratnagar, Suraj Bhan, Irfan Habib, Rajesh Kochhar, among other scholars, started raising doubts from the 1980s on the identification of the Vedic river.12 Their ground for doing so was that since archaeological evidence showed that the river broke up and dried up in its central basin around 1900 BCE, this date raises the following problem: If Indo-Aryan speakers, popularly known as \u2015Aryans\u2016, entered India about 1500 BCE, as is often proposed, they could not have composed hymns praising the Sarasvat\u012b as a mighty river \u2015flowing from the mountain to the sea\u2016 when the river had largely dried up by that time. An \u2015unbroken\u2016 Sarasvat\u012b would point to a date before 2000 BCE \u2014 in fact before 2600 BCE, as M. Rafique Mughal, surveying the\u00a0<\/span>Cholistan Desert (on the Pakistani side of the international border), showed that the river had suffered a first break in that region before the Mature phase (this is confirmed by isotopic dating of underground water body in the same area13). To date the Rig-Vedic period before the Harappan Mature phase was seen as unacceptable, yet this is what the hydrographic evidence suggests (see further discussion in Module on the Aryan Issue).<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

To solve this apparent chronological paradox, the above-mentioned scholars attempted two different lines of argument:<\/span><\/p>\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n

\r\n