|
H. Language Transfer/Replacement in South
Asia
The exact mechanism by which the Indo-Aryan languages came to prevail in
much of South Asia remains a vexed problem to this day due to lack of any
hard evidence that would help in reaching a decision. Renfrew and Bahn
[1996:447] give a lucid summary of how languages come to dominate different
geographical areas of the world-
A specific language can come to be spoken in a given territory by one of the
four process: by initial colonization; by divergence, where the dialects of
speech communities remote from each other become more and more different,
finally forming new languages, as in the case of the various descendants of
Latin (including French, Spanish, Portuguese, Italian, etc.); by
convergence, where contemporaneous languages influence one another through
the borrowing of words, phrases, and grammatical forms; and by language
replacement, where one language in the territory comes to replace another.
Language replacement can occur in several ways:
1. by the formation of a trading language or lingua franca, which gradually
becomes dominant in a wide region;
2. by elite dominance, whereby a small number of incomers secure power and
impose their language on the majority;
3. by a technological innovation so significant that the incoming group can
grow in numbers more effectively. The best example is farming dispersal
Since the Aryan migrants were nomads, not large-scale traders unlike the
inhabitants of sea-faring IVC, we should expect the migrants would have
adopted the language of the IVC inhabitants. For some mysterious reasons,
this did not happen. Instead, the reverse scenario occurred. Hence, we can
safely reject Renfrew’s first mechanism of language transfer in explaining
the spread of Indo-Aryan languages over much of non-Aryan South Asia.
The third mechanism can also be rejected because the Aryan subjugation of
the natives of India actually entailed a reversal to a more primitive way of
life. This is because the subjugated non-Aryan natives of India were
inheritors of an advanced, literate, urban culture whereas the migrating
Aryans were nomadic/pastoral with a very inferior material culture. Even the
metallurgical skills of the Aryans were inferior to those of Harappans [Jha
1998:45]:
As might be expected of a people without cities, the early Aryans did not
have an advanced technology even though their use of horses and chariots,
and possibly of some better arms of bronze did give them an edge over their
opponents. Their knowledge of metals seems to have been limited. The Rigveda
mentions only one metal called ayas (copper/bronze). In view of the
widespread use of bronze in Iran around the middle of the second millennium
BC, the word has been taken to mean bronze. Yet bronze objects assignable to
the period of Rigveda have not hitherto been found in any significant
quantity at the sites excavated in the Land of the Seven Rivers. The
evidence for the use of bronze on any considerable scale being slight, there
is no archaeological basis for the view that the early Aryan bronze-smiths
were highly skilled or produced tools and weapons superior to those of the
Harappans. Nor did the Rigvedic people possess any knowledge of iron.
To explain this apparent anomaly, it is sometimes proposed that when the
Aryans came, the Harappans had already undergone cultural decay to such an
extent that they adopted the language and numerous aspects of the culture of
their new Aryan masters easily. However, Indologists and archaeologists
often pay more attention to the ‘intrusive traits’ of ‘Aryan migrants’ found
at Late Harappan level in the archaeological record and propose that the
Indo-Aryan speakers came before Harappan civilization decayed away.
As a result, we are left with the Elite Dominance Model to explain how the
Indo-Aryan languages were spread by a few Aryan migrants over most of South
Asia. This is not a comfortable choice, because the Elite Dominance Model is
more compatible with the AIT scenarios, rather than with AMT models. Renfrew
has discussed this model in detail [1988:131-134] and states clearly that it
entails military superiority of the invading group. He considers various
possibilities within this model to explain the spread of IA languages in
South Asia, all of which include an invasion of IA speakers. Therefore, it
is a bit odd that this model has been used by Indologists to explain the
spread of IA languages by ‘immigrants’.
Elite Dominance Model- Chariots and Horses: Erdosy [1995:90-91] quotes
archaeologist Colin Renfrew in discussing the application of the Elite
Dominance Model to the IVC area:
According to the Elite Dominance model (Renfrew 1987), the invading or the
migrating Aryans comprised of a tripartite social division – corresponding
to the 3 higher castes of Brahmin, Kshatriya/Rajanya and Vaishya. These
comprised the conquering or the dominating elite, which was superimposed on
the native population, resulting in the addition of the ‘non-Aryan’ sudra
varna to the 3 castes.
A minor variant of this model due to D. D. Kosambi, the doyen of Marxist
historiography in India (and an upholder of AIT) has also been cited by
Erdosy[15] [ibid:91, fn. 16]
Alternately, Kosambi (1950) proposed that the Brahmanas were rather
indigenous ritual specialists who were co-opted by the conquering elite
composed of Kshatriyas, Vaishyas and the now defunct sacrificial priests who
died out along with their complex rituals.
The domination over and subjugation of the Harappans by migrating Aryans is
then said to have been aided by the latter possessing spoke wheeled, light
chariots and horses – articles of immense military importance which, the
Harappans supposedly did not have. Witzel [1997:xxii, note 54] summarizes
this explanation, illustrating it with the example of the Norman invasion of
England in 1066 AD and the arrival (in reality invasions) of Sakas, Hunas
and Kushanas into N. W. India:-
The immigrating group(s) may have been relatively small one(s), such as
Normans who came to England in 1066 and who nearly turned England into
French speaking country- while they originally had been Scandinavians,
speaking N. Germanic. This may supply a model for the Indo-Aryan immigration
as well...…..However, the introduction of the horse and especially of the
horse-drawn chariot was a powerful weapon in the hands of the Indo-Aryans.
It must have helped to secure military and political dominance even if some
of the local elite were indeed quick to introduce the new cattle-based
economy and the weapon, the horse drawn chariot, - just as the Near Eastern
peoples did on a much larger and planned scale. If they had resided and
intermarried with the local population of the northern borderlands of Iran
(the so called Bactro-Margiana Archaeological complex) for some centuries,
the immigrating Indo-Aryan clans and tribes may originally have looked like
Bactrians, Afghanis or Kashmiris, and must have been racially submerged
quickly in the population of the Punjab, just like later immigrants whose
staging area was in Bactria as well: the Saka, Kusana, Huns, etc……
Elsewhere, Witzel [1995:114] elaborates on the role played by the chariot
(‘Vedic tank’) and the horse in enabling the Aryans secure elite domination
over the descendants of Harappans:
The first appearance of thundering chariots must have stricken the local
population with a terror, similar to that experienced by the Aztecs and
Incas upon the arrival of the iron-clad, horse riding Spaniards.
He elaborates further [ibid, fn. 74]
Something of this fear of the horse and of the thundering chariot, the
"tank" of the 2nd millennium B.C. is transparent in the famous horse 'Dadhikra'
of the Puru king Trasadasya ("Tremble enemy"" in RV 4.38.8) ……..The first
appearance of thundering chariots must have stricken the local population
with terror similar to that experienced by the Aztecs and the Incas upon the
arrival of the iron-clad, horse riding Spaniards.
In such a scenario, it was possible that the locals were quick to adopt the
use of the horse and the chariot and thus outsmart the Aryan migrants.
However, while doing so, the locals also supposedly ‘appropriated’ the
Indo-Aryan language and culture as their own, becoming Aryans themselves [Witzel
1995:109]:-
Not only the language, but also the culture of the newly arrived elite was
appropriated, including the 'Vedic Tank' the horse drawn chariot.
The crucial and definitive role played by horses and chariots in over-awing
the non-Aryan natives and then transforming them to acculturated Aryans was
explained by Michael Witzel in his inimitable vivid style on 13 February
2000 on the Indology list, while addressing the present author and a few
others[16] :
I invite Messrs. Wani, Subrahmanya, Agarwal, et al., to stand still and hold
their position in front of quickly approaching (modern) horse race
'chariots', or in front of a line of police on horseback (even without Lathi
charge), and then report back to the list ... if they are able to do so
after this little experiment.
Ratnagar [1999:232] also refers to the terror striking capacity of a swift
horse driven chariot and subscribes to the romantic notion that the pastoral
Aryan elite rode gloriously into the Saptasindhu region on their chariots,
acquiring the servitude of the non-Aryan populace as a result.
Writing in the Indology list on 3 December 2000, Lars Martin Fosse, a
Norwegian Indologist also elaborated on how the ‘migrating’ Aryans came to
dominate the aboriginal Indians, using examples from Europe [17] :
An aside concerning marriage and the spreading of genes: in archaeic (and
not so archaeic) societies, men did not have sex only with their wives
(sic). There was also the reward of the warrior: rape and capture of slave
girls, not to mention regular concubines and servant girls. So even if an
Aryan warrior brought his wife (or wives) to India, he may as well have
shared out his sperm generously among the local women. Please remember that
the model for a migrating Aryan tribe is more like a migrating Germanic or
Celtic tribe: which included women, children, pigs, cows etc. etc. It was a
society on the move, not a regular army like the Roman legions or the Greek
phalanx, or for that matter the Muslim central asian armies that overran
India in the Middle Ages. Read Caesars De bello gallico (first book) for a
vivid impression on how such a migration worked. (Germanic and Celtic women
often worked as "supporters" during a battle, standing "ring-side" and
urging their men on. And well they might, because if the men lost, they
ended up as slaves.)
A natural question is: Did the Aryan migrants construct their horse-powered
chariots (‘Vedic Tanks’) to the east of the Khyber Pass, i.e., in the
Saptasindhu region and after migrating from Bactria slowly; or did they
hurtle across the Hindu Kush mountain range/Khyber Pass gloriously, suddenly
and dramatically in their chariots, from Bactria to Saptasindhu region? The
former possibility seems to have been negated, in the light of the imagery
presented by Witzel et al – ‘police on horseback’, ‘thundering chariots’
etc. Moreover, if the Aryan migrants had slowly trickled into the
Saptasindhu and had used the local wood for their chariots, the non-Aryan
natives would not have been alarmed or scared so much at the functioning of
vehicles fashioned in front of their own eyes or upon seeing the neighing
horses. Thus, Witzel seems to have the second scenario in mind – that of
horse driven chariots of migrating Aryans traversing mountain ranges and
descending dramatically into the terror struck crowds of non-Aryan natives
of the Saptasindhu. The imagery of the migration of the first Aryans
presented by Witzel is more akin to a roaring helicopter descending on the
tribals of Papua, who have never seen one before.
As the possibility of the ‘thundering chariots’ proposed by Witzel was
questioned by some on the Internet, Witzel has come up with another
speculation in a post dated 10 April 2001 on the Indology list [18]
according to which the chariots might have been transported across the
Khyber on the ‘rathavahana’ – a cart for carrying the disassembled chariots
over longer distances:
Lars Fosse is of course entirely right about the rathavaahana vehicle
transporting the light (c. 30 kg) and vulnerable ratha. A ratha is used in
sport and battle on even ground, not for long distance travel (and certainly
that not across the Khyber, as some always facetiously maintain to
'disprove' any sort of movement into the subcontinent of Indo-Aryan speaking
tribes).
Of course then, we will have to assume that the migrating Aryans first
transported their chariots (= ratha) across the Khyber on the ‘rathavaahanas’.
Once in the Saptasindhu, these chariots were yoked to their neighing horses,
and then driven to a thundering din. The native non-Aryans got scared at the
sight of these ‘Vedic tanks’ and readily accepted the culture, language and
religion of the migrants. But even then, how did these ‘Vedic tanks’ or the
rathavaahanas cross the seven mighty rivers of the Saptasindhu region?
What was it about these Aryan tribesmen and their culture that Aryanism came
to predominate, just like fission of a few molecules leads to an unstoppable
nuclear explosion? Witzel draws an analogy from Japan, where a few
‘aggressive horse riders’ from Northern China were able to influence the
Japanese culture dramatically. Writing in the IndicTraditions List on 11
December 2000, he states [19] :
The stone age, but already pottery using Jomon culture was supplanted by the
HORSE riders’ Yayoi (roughly 3rd century BC – 3rd century CE) and subsequent
Kofun (grave mound, Kurgan type) ‘people’/culture. No horse in Japan before
that time. …and a new language. Of Altaic type, -- while the clearly visible
substrate in Japanese has Austric (Austronesian/ Austroasiatic….) roots
(often similar to Indian substrate words) …
But, no one in Japan (or in Europe!) complains that their “ancestors”
(1500-2000 years ago!!) are a mixed lot: the very talent potters of the
Jomon period were superceded by aggressive horse riders – as seen in the
Haniwa type clay figures of armor clad warriors found at grave sites – who
came, along with their mythology and language, out of Korea and Manchuria,
(the ‘N. Korean’ Koguryo language has close affinities to Japanese)…
In sum, you have an “Aryan-like scenario”, with horse riding Altaic (N.
“Korean”, Koguryo) speaking REAL invaders/immigrants that set off a process
of Yayoization all over the country, an “Aryanization” so to speak, of the
society resulting in a mixed population, language, mythology etc. etc.
The scenario is exactly as the one of S. Asia: a long unbroken local
tradition of local cultures (potter, agriculture) etc. with continuous
settlement by a local type people, before and after Yayoi/’Indo-Aryan’ type
influence…
Witzel has recently professed his acceptance of the acculturation model of
Ehret [1988] to explain the spread of IA languages in South Asia after the
‘lost tribe’ found its way into the Saptasindhu region. Writing in the
Indology list on 23 July 2000, he states[20]:
As I have written here before, you only need one tribe out of Afghanistan
who took the wrong turn and stayed in the Panjab instead of returning to the
Afghani summer pastures, -- and you start Ch. Ehret's scenario of
billiard-ball like innovation and cultural change, which spreads
successfully, so that no member of the end of the chain must have any
(genetic or other direct) connection with those that started it.
I shall discuss this model elsewhere in detail. Nevertheless, I would like
to emphasize that in Witzel’s ‘Lost Tribe Model’ (as I would like to name
it), the role of the chariots and horses in promoting Aryan values via elite
domination followed by acculturation becomes very dubious. Did these tribes
bring their horse chariots to the Indus plains every winter, taking them
back with them? If yes, how could the familiar sight of thundering ‘Vedic
Tanks’ and neighing horses strike terror in the hearts of the non-Aryan
natives of the Saptasindhu region? Moreover, what did these pastoral nomads
use horse drawn chariots for? Certainly not for herding their sheep and
cows, as had been suggested by Stuart Piggott in the 1950’s!
The reader will note that all these elite dominance models involving ‘Vedic
Tanks’ and ‘aggressive horsemen’ are just versions of AIT. It is therefore
intellectually dishonest to adopt the politically more correct terminology
of ‘migrations’ for the IA speaking invaders described by these models. In
fact, such models are quite fanciful and romantic in nature (if true
migrations are assumed) and all the analogies drawn from other parts of the
world to validate the spread of IA languages in India in a similar manner
are in fact clear-cut cases of invasions. I shall explain this point in
detail elsewhere [21] . |
