From the introduction to Great Bharata: The Invasion Begins, Volume 1
I will give additional attention here to South Asian archeology. After all, one might think that regardless of who built and inhabited the Indus Valley Civilization, the great, ancient culture described in Mahā-bhārata, if it truly existed, must have left archeological remains throughout Northern India.
Here too, however, as elsewhere, secular scholarship, cannot definitively adjudicate the historicity of the Mahā-bhārata. I will explain why.
We begin with a simple but huge problem plaguing South Asian archeology: very little of South Asia has been seriously excavated. American archaeologist Sarah Parcak of the University of Alabama stated, “I…feel confident saying more than 90% of…[South Asian] archaeological sites have not been excavated…India has such an extraordinary and rich heritage, with many thousands of years of occupation…Thus, I would estimate that more than 90% of India’s heritage is [still] buried…”[1]
This problem will not be soon remedied. “Smriti Haricharan [of the] National Institute of Advanced Studies, says archeology remains underfunded [in India] and departments of archaeology are few in number, and understaffed.”[2]
The Archeological Survey of India, founded by the British in 1861, is India’s central government agency responsible for archeology and the preservation of historical monuments. Apart from its intrinsic problems of underfunding and understaffing, other problems, beyond this agency’s power, make it very difficult for archeology in India to give a definitive picture of India’s ancient past. Here are some of the problems.
1. India has suffered brutal invasions that destroyed many ancient and monumental structures
2. The population density of India is about four times that of other ancient civilizations such as Iraq and Egypt. Thus far more potential sites have been continually inhabited to this day. Ancient artifacts and structures are often repurposed, sold, thrown away, or destroyed.
3. Rapid urbanization in modern India makes a vast and growing number of sites unavailable for excavation.
Parcak’s conclusion? “…I would estimate that more than 90% of India’s heritage is buried…”
To vividly grasp the heavy challenges facing Indian archeology, let us consider the case of Rakhigarhi, a village about 85 miles northwest of Delhi, and close to the geographic center of Mahā-bhārata events. Among other reasons, Rakhigiri is a high value site for many reasons. It yielded rare DNA (about 4,500 years old), was a key IVS city, and it lies but 150 kilometers from ancient Indra-prastha, one of the most important cities in the Mahā-bhārata.
The Archeological Survey of India began excavating this site in 1963, though little was published. Yet by 2020, almost sixty years later, the ASI and Deccan College had excavated only 5% of the site.[3]
“It took a massive, time-consuming effort to produce the genome from remains found in the cemetery at Rakhigarhi, the Harappans’ [IVS] largest city.”[4]
Yet, despite the extraordinary value of this site, as of February, 2020, only five percent of the site had been excavated, according to the daily newspaper, The Hindu, Feb 27, 2020.
In an article dated April 15, 2015, The Tribune of India declared, “Lack of official protection and plunder of treasure troves, hidden underneath, by unscrupulous elements are playing havoc with the 5,000-year-old ancient archaeological site belonging to the Indus Valley civilisation in the village [of Rakhigarhi].
“While a good part of the site had been destroyed by soil erosion, encroachments and illegal sand lifting by the farmers is damaging the rest.
“Some villagers told [us] that the antiquities being recovered from the site had been sold for the past many years. There are many people in nearby villages who own antiquities, including domestic terracotta items, copper objects, precious stones, beads, shells etc.
“Global Heritage Fund (GHF), an international organisation working for protection of endangered sites in the developing world, …included Rakhigarhi as [one of] Asia’s 10 most significant archaeological sites facing irreparable loss and destruction.
“‘It is one of the largest and oldest Indus sites in the world which is facing threat due to development pressures, insufficient management and looting’, the GHF report mentions.”[5]
With all these problems, what archeological information do we actually have about India in the approximate time and locations of the Mahā-bhārata? From 1950 to 1952, B.B. Lal, who later served as ASI director, focused on archeological sites related to events in the Mahā-bhārata, such as Hastinapur, the great royal capital of the Kurus. Lal was inclined to see the stories of the Mahā-bhārata, and its sister epic, the Rāmāyana, as based on historical events.
In 1952, archeologist B.B. Lal, later the director of the ASI, began excavations at Hastinā-pura, an imperial capital in the Mahā-bhārata. He found some ancient remains, such as elegant grey pottery painted with black, geometric patterns, and dated to as early as 1300 BCE. This pottery has been found in over 1,100 sites extending over a wide area, and is linked to village and town sites, domesticated horses, ivory-working, and the advent of iron metallurgy.
Later, somewhat older black and red ware pottery was found. Clearly, we can draw no detailed conclusions from this, since we do not have evidence as to exactly who made this pottery, and what their possible relation was to Mahā-bhārata. As I often heard Dr. Witzel say in classes at Harvard, “Pots don’t speak.”
After a hiatus of nearly 70 years, the ASI is again planning to do serious excavations at Hastinā-pura. “The plan is to look for new evidence to ground the Mahabharata in history and preserve earlier finds.”[6]
Other recent archeological efforts also seek to correlate findings with the Mahā-bhārata, such as the excavations at Lakshagriha.[7] To be precise, we do not definitely know that the current Indian town of Hastinapur, the focal point of archeological efforts, is in fact the ancient Kuru capital of Hastinā-pura, which plays such a central role in the Mahā-bhārata. Nor that other places of similar interest precisely correspond to other places mentioned in the epic.
Another Mahā-bhārata site which has raised keen interest is the modern city of Dwarka on the west coast of Gujarat, believed to be the site of Kṛṣṇa’s fabled island city of Dvārakā.
From 1983-1990, the Marine Archaeology Unit of India’s National Institute of Oceanography (NIO) carried out underwater excavations at Dwarka and Bet Dwarka, in search of Kṛṣṇa’s city. The Mahā-bhārata and other sacred texts claim that when Kṛṣṇa and his associates left this world, the sea level rose, submerging the city in the Arabian Sea.
According to a UNESCO report, “Between 1983 and 1990 the archaeologists discovered a fortified foundation on which the ancient city walls must have been built along the river banks. Stone blocks used for the construction, pillars and irrigation systems were found but a debate is still ongoing regarding the dating of the vestiges, either from 3,000 to 1,500 years BC or from the Middle Ages.”[8]
Though fascinating and suggestive, these studies do not prove beyond doubt, and certainly do not disprove, that we have recovered material evidence of the culture and events described in the Mahā-bhārata. Just as pots “don’t speak,” so sadly neither do submerged stone blocks and pillars. As at Hastinā-pura, we do not have clear textual proof that identifies these places.
Again, by the strict standards of secular scholarship, we simply do not know who carved the blocks and placed the pillars.
DNA/Genetic evidence
In a 2007 paper (Anthropological, historical, archaeological and genetic perspectives on the origins of caste in South Asia) Oxford University archeologist Nicole Boivin, who did extensive work in South Asia, made this critique of scholars seeking to use genetic studies to show that Vedic, Sanskrit culture came from outside India.
“In reading the genetics literature on South Asia, it is very clear that many of the studies actually start out with some assumptions that are clearly problematic, if not in some cases completely untenable. Perhaps the single most serious problem concerns the assumption, which many studies actually start with as a basic premise… that the Indo–Aryan invasions [of India] are a well-established (pre)historical reality.” Such genetic studies often “confirm such invasions in large part because they actually assume them to begin with.”
Conclusion: genetic studies cannot prove that the culture described in the Mahā-bhārata originally came to India from an external Indo-European homeland.
DNA and Agriculture
I will end my brief survey of South Asian archeology with a word on ancient agriculture, a probable indicator of a developed culture. At issue here is whether ancient South Asian agriculture, and the culture it sustained, were indigenous to South Asia. Or did they come from outside, from ancient Mesopotamia, or from Indo-European peoples that conquered, migrated to, or civilized the indigenous people of South Asia?
Although scholars previously believed, “that agriculture arrived in the Indo-Pakistani region via migration from the Fertile Crescent of the Middle East, the ancient Harappan genes show little contribution from that lineage, suggesting that farming spread through an exchange of ideas rather than a mass migration, or perhaps even arose independently in South Asia. …[T]he first farmers of the Fertile Crescent appear to have contributed little, genetically, to South Asian populations. ‘…similar practices of farming are present in South Asia by about 8,000 B.C. or so,’ says Priya Moorjani, a population geneticist at UC Berkeley.”[9]
How is all this relevant to our discussion of the Mahā-bhārata? It seems that North and Northwest India, key regions in the epic, did not import from the Middle East culture that is crucial to Mahā-bhārata events. Rather, the area associated with the epic developed its own advanced culture. This agrees with the self-understanding of the Mahā-bhārata.
Bryant concludes, “There is no consistent archaeological evidence that can be traced across Asia and into India…” [ibid p298]
Further, archeology often depends on the excavation of grave sites. In that sense too, South Asian archeology could well be hampered by a culture of cremation, clearly described in the Mahā-bhārata, as well as river burial, or simply leaving cadavers in the wilderness to be consumed by local fauna.
As described earlier, the Mahā-bhārata depicts an oral society. If, even hypothetically, we use the dates given by Aryabhata and the Aihole inscription, then the events so vividly described in the epic took place thousands of years before translatable writing appeared in South Asia. Thus archeologists will likely look in vain for sufficiently ancient inscriptions, texts or epigraphs that explain archeological findings.
endnotes
[1] Times of India 28.12.21
[2] Deccan Herald 12.22.21
[3] The Hindu, Feb 27, 2020
[4] Rare Ancient DNA Provides Window Into a 5,000-Year-Old South Asian Civilization, Brian Handwerk, Smithsonian Magazine, September 5, 2019.
[5] The Tribune India, Apr 16, 2015
[6] The Times of India, July 20, 2021
[7] The Lakshagriha Excavation Project, Hindustan Times, April 08, 2018
[8] https://en.unesco.org/silkroad/silk-road-themes/underwater-heritage/dwarka
[9] Rare Ancient DNA Provides Window Into a 5,000-Year-Old South Asian Civilization, Brian Handwerk, Smithsonian Magazine, September 5, 2019.