The Chronology of Puranic Kings and Rgvedic Rsis

8/10/2019 The Chronology of Puranic Kings and Rgvedic Rsis

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-chronology-of-puranic-kings-and-rgvedic-rsis 1/27

220 | GIACOMO BENEDETTI

6

The Chronology of PurÀõic Kings and †gvedic †ÈisIn Comparison with the Phases of the Sindhu–SarasvatÁ Civilization

Giacomo Benedetti

AS is well known, most of the Western Indologists have seen the †gvedic hymns asthe religious expression of the Indo-Aryans during their conquest of northern India,coming from Afghanistan and Central Asia. The theory of the Aryan invasion of Indiawas already well established in the second half of the nineteenth century, when thefirst complete translations (by Wilson and Griffith) and editions (by Aufrecht andMüller) of †gveda SaÚhitÀ appeared. The †gvedic people were conceived as a groupof nomadic tribes fighting around the Punjab with the “dark-skinned” (k¦Èõ˜tvác)1 and“flat-nosed” (an˜s)2 natives. The text of the hymns was systematically interpreted

1 †V I.130.8; IX.41.1. Cf. IX.73.5 (tvácam ásiknÁÚ). For the two instances in the Maõçala IX, the

Monier-Williams dictionary accepts the meaning “the black cover, darkness”, but for the

first instance in the Maõçala I, he translates “the black man”: we should more coherently

accept only the metaphoric meaning, suitable for all the cases, and discard the invasionist

interpretation. Actually, we can see here the bias of the racist view of the nineteenth century,

which we cannot apply to the Indian traditional view, that used to distinguish the Àrya from

the dÀsa or œÂdra on the basis of the religious and moral customs, and not of the physical

appearance. K¦Èõa “black”, was a name applied to two great Aryan figures like the king of

the YÀdavas, well known as avatÀra of ViÈõu and teacher of Bhagavad-GÁtÀ, and DvaipÀyana

VyÀsa, the arranger of the Vedas.

2 †V V.29.10. According to SÀyaõa, an˜so, here applied to enemies or demons, comes from an-˜s “having no mouth or face”, that has probably to do with the symbolic value of the face,

maybe connected with shame, which can be shown from the blush on the face (like Italian

sfacciato, lit. “faceless”, meaning “shameless”). Interpreting this as a-n˜s “without nose”, that

is, “flat-nosed”, like some tribal people of India, is another racist misreading of the †gveda,

considering also that the Monier-Williams dictionary accepts only anÀsa as meaning “noseless”,

a stem which cannot be applied in this context.



| 221THE CHRONOLOGY OF PUR°ÕIC KINGS AND †GVEDIC †ÈIS

through the lens of these premises, ignoring the possibility of a different reading,more in harmony with the whole Indian tradition. Chronologically, as the invasion

was put around 1500 BCE, the hymns had to begin in the same period.In the twentieth century, when the ancient past of north-western South Asia was

discovered through the excavations of Moheôjo-DaÃo and HaÃappÀ, the Indus citadelswere seen as the seat of the Dravidians destroyed by †gvedic worshippers of Indra(called in the hymns puraÚdará “destroyer of citadels”), particularly by the Britisharchaeologist Mortimer Wheeler. The Vedic identity of the Indus or HaÃappanCivilization was already denied by Marshall, because of the period and the supposedsocio-cultural differences between the Vedic and the HaÃappan Civilization, but someIndian scholars began to think that there could be a relationship. The historian A.D.

Pusalker3

was maybe the most authoritative in this direction, and the most systematicattempt has been that of Bhagwan Singh in his The Vedic Harappans. Finally, even oneof the main Indian archaeologists, B.B. Lal, has advocated the thesis that †gvedic Aryanswere the HaÃappan people, observing the correspondence of their geographical areaand the drying up of the SarasvatÁ River — so important in many hymns of the †gveda— happened around the 2000–1900 BCE as shown by the abandonment of KÀlÁbaôgan.4

This is a very exploited topic in the last years, and it is surely a strong reason for theidentity of the two cultures. The SarasvatÁ Valley was one of the most important areasof the HaÃappan Civilization, and it was continuously inhabited since the fourthmillennium BCE by the Hakra Ware people,5 then by the KoÇ DÁjÁ culture in the lowervalley in Cholistan6 and by the Sothi–SiswÀl Early HaÃappan culture in the uppervalley in Haryana, continuing also during the Mature and Late HaÃappan periods.7

For this reason, some archaeologists (like S.P. Gupta) have accepted to use the newterm of “Indus–SarasvatÁ” or “Sindhu–SarasvatÁ” Civilization. About the drying up of the SarasvatÁ, we must recognize that it was not complete around 1900 BCE, since manysettlements were concentrated, in the Late HaÃappan Period (1900–1300 BCE), in thearea between the SarasvatÁ and the D¦ÈadvatÁ, which still in MahÀbhÀrata was identifiedas the sacred land of KurukÈetra. In the same poem we find the description of thevarious tÁrthas along the SarasvatÁ, particularly in the context of the pilgrimage of

3 Pusalker 1950, 1968.4 Lal 1998a, b, 2002.5 Gupta 1996: 50-53.6 Possehl 1999: 661-62.7 Possehl 1999: 681-713.




BalarÀma ( MBh 9.34.12–9.53.35). None the less, the description of the river as a powerfulstream in some †gvedic hymns is considered to fit only in the context preceding 1900BCE, when the SarasvatÁ is supposed to have received the water of the Sutlej and evenof the YamunÀ.

Now, we want here to deal with the chronology of †gveda compared with what weknow from archaeology about the Sindhu–SarasvatÁ Civilization. In order to do that,we have to use the South Asian historical tradition, which has been systematicallystudied with a critical method by F.E. Pargiter in his fundamental work Ancient Indian

Historical Tradition first published in 1922. He analysed thoroughly the traditionscontained in the epics and the PurÀõas and was able to reconstruct the genealogicaltables of the ancient royal dynasties and a general picture of the different periods of

the Indian proto-history. Our hypothesis will be that the reconstruction of Pargiter isgenerally correct, and that his dynastic lists can be used for a chronology of the past of the South Asian Civilization. This hypothesis has been accepted by many Indianscholars, but in the West the work of Pargiter is quite ignored, maybe for the mainreason that he did not accept the dogma of an Aryan invasion from the north-west,since the Indian tradition gave no basis for such an event. What is missing in theimpressive work of Pargiter are certainly the archaeological data, and a comparison

between those data as now available and his reconstruction could be something veryuseful in order to give an identity to the archaeological cultures and to give a materialcorroboration to the historical tradition.

The cornerstone of the proto-historic chronology of South Asia is the date of theMahÀbhÀrata battle, because all the dynastic lists reconstructed by Pargiter finish withthe battle, and because there are chronological observations in the PurÀõas about theperiod between the first king after the battle (ParÁkÈit) and the beginning of an EarlyHistoric dynasty (that of the Nandas), important because it was marked by anotherextermination of the kÈatriyas. These observations tell us that between the birth of ParÁkÈit and the coronation of MahÀpadma Nanda elapsed 1,050 or 1,015 years.8 About

8 The text reconstructed by Pagiter (1913: 58; the translation is from p. 74) is: mahÀpadmÀbhiÈekÀt

tu yÀvaj janma parÁkÈitaÍ/evaÚ varÈa-sahasraÚ tu jðeyam paðcÀœad-uttaram “Now from MahÀpadma’sinauguration to ParÁkÈit’s birth, this interval is indeed known as 1050 years”. He observes

that this is the general lesson of Matsya, VÀyu and BrahmÀõça PurÀõa, but one manuscript of

VÀyu PurÀõa, as well as ViÈõu and BhÀgavata PurÀõa, give us the different lesson paðcadaœottaram

(meaning 1015). VÀyuP, according to the Nag edition, has also paðcÀdaœad uttaram, which

shows a rare term for 1050, probably accepted as lectio difficilior, but it has a syllable exceeding

the normal metrical form of the œloka.




the date of this coronation, there are some doubts; according to the PurÀõas, 100 yearselapsed from the beginning to the end of the Nanda dynasty (including nine kings),

that means up to the coronation of Candragupta Maurya (placed by different scholarsin a year ranging from 322 to 312 BCE). This could be corroborated by the Jaina tradition,which assigns ninety-five years to the dynasty, since it places the beginning of theNandas sixty years after the death of MahÀvÁra (477 BCE, then in 417 BCE) and their end155 years after that event (322 BCE).9 According to these sources, the year of the coronationof the first Nanda could be 422-412 BCE. Adding 1,050 years, we arrive at 1472-1462 BCE

for the birth of ParÁkÈit and the year of the battle; adding 1,015 years, we arrive at 1437-1427 BCE. In order to find a more precise date, we have to resort to MahÀbhÀrata itself,which gives us an interesting astronomic observation: the beginning of the battle is

placed in the New Moon when the sun was in the asterism JyeÈÇhÀ–RohiõÁ, and BhÁÈmadies 67 days later, in the winter solstice. Comparing this datum with the situation inCE 1900, T. Bhattacharya found that the same interval between JyeÈÇhÀ and the solsticehas become of 20.8 days, and calculating seventy-two years for each degree of theprecession of the equinoxes he arrived at 1428 BCE for the Battle, or, by a more precisecalculation, he determined the first day of the war as 27 October 1432 BCE.10 We canobserve that this date would correspond exactly to 1,015 years before 417, the dateassigned to the coronation of Nanda in the Jaina chronology.11

If we look at archaeology in order to find a corroboration of this date, we cannotreasonably pretend to find traces of the battle, but we do have some interesting elementsfor comparison. In the late fifteenth century BCE in the area of KurukÈetra we still haveLate HaÃappan settlements, and in one of them, BhagwÀnpura, particularly close tothe supposed site of the battle, we find Late HaÃappan pottery together with PaintedGrey Ware (PGW), dating here from 1400 BCE.12 It is well known that according to B.B.

9 For the various sources and opinions, see Singh 2004: 170-71; 175-76.10 Cited in Gupta and Ramachandran 1976: 114-15. There is also another important astronomical

observation in the PurÀõas (see Pargiter 1913: 60-62, 5), that of the line of the saptarÈis (passing

between Ursa Major and ), which remains conjoined with the same nakÈatra (asterism) for

100 years. At the time of ParÁkÈit it was in MaghÀ (tenth nakÈatra), and the reign of Nanda

begins in PÂrvÀÈÀçhÀ (twentieth nakÈatra). Between ParÁkÈit and Nanda the Great Bear wasconjoined then with ten asterisms, which corresponds to a period of about 1,000 years. For

the astronomical details, see Gupta and Ramachandran, 1976: 116-17.11 According to another view (see Gupta and Ramachandran, 1976: 113; Talageri, 1993: 49),

MahÀpadma Nanda came to power in 382, 378 or 374 BCE and adding 1,050 years to this date

we arrive at 1424, 1428 or 1432 BCE.12 Kenoyer 2006: 43.




Lal this ware is related to the MahÀbhÀrata period because it is found in many localitiesmentioned in the poem, like Indraprastha (the capital of the PÀõçavas, identified with

Purana Qila in Delhi), HastinÀpura (the capital of the Kauravas), Ahicchatra (the capitalof North PaðcÀla) and KauœÀmbÁ (the capital of South PaðcÀla). But we have anotherware that is present in the area of the Kurus (Upper Doab) and in the same sites of HastinÀpura, Ahicchatra and KauœÀmbÁ in the second millennium BCE, namely the so-called Ochre Coloured Pottery (OCP), as already observed by S.P. Gupta.13 This is thepottery of the first level of the aforementioned sites, it is generally dated 2000–1500BCE, but the thermoluminescence tests on sherds from AtraðjikheÃÀ, Lal Qila, JhinjhÀnÀand NasÁrpur have given dates between 2650 and 1180 BCE.14 About HastinÀpura andKauœÀmbÁ, there is the important tradition that the fifth successor of ParÁkÈit, NicakÈu,

abandoned the first city, because it was carried away by the Ganges, and made thesecond one his capital.15 B.B. Lal has claimed that this is confirmed by the PGW levelsof HastinÀpura, where there are traces of a partial flood, and by the fact that we canfind a similar PGW culture in KauœÀmbÁ. But we can observe that also the first, OCPlevel, of HastinÀpura was abandoned, and that also in KauœÀmbÁ there are OCP levelswhich have been only hypothetically dated by Sharma in 1960.16 About Indraprastha,it is true that at Purana Qila the earliest remains found are PGW sherds, but a fullPGW level has not been identified, and in the area of Delhi various sites have beenfound with Late HaÃappan material in their earliest level, like BhorgaÃh and MaõçolÁ,where such material can be dated about 1500–1200 BCE.17 Therefore, the archaeological

excavations suggest that the first settlements in the area, like KhÀõçavaprastha, which became the Indraprastha of the epic, belong to 1500 BCE, just before the age of thePÀõçavas, sent from HastinÀpura to that province as if it were a place newly colonized,

bordered by the dense forest of KhÀõçavavana, which was burnt by the PÀõçavas.18

13 Gupta and Ramachandran 1976: 47-49.14 Ghosh 1989, vol. I: 174-75.15 Pargiter 1922: 285; Singh 2004: 143.16 See Eltsov 2008: 44, 49-50. Cf. Ghosh 1989, vol. II: 164-66, where the end of the Pd. II of

HastinÀpura (the flooded PGW level) is dated as late as the eighth century BCE, whereas the

Pd. I is dated generically in the first half of the second millennium BCE.17 See Singh 2006: 32, 39.18 In MBh 1.55.24 KhÀõçavaprastha is said janapadopetaÚ suvibhaktamahÀpatham (endowed with

an inhabited country and with large streets well distributed or symmetrical). In MBh 1.199.26

it is associated with a ghoraÚ vanaÚ (terrible forest) and in the following stanza it is said that

they adorned that town (maõçayÀÚ cakrire tad vai puraÚ). In st. 28 is described the choice of

an auspicious land and the measurement of the new city (nagaraÚ mÀpayÀm Àsur), whose




In another area, the KÀÇhiÀwÀÃ peninsula of Gujarat, we have another interestingarchaeological clue: the ancient DvÀravatÁ or DvÀrakÀ, capital of K¦Èõa, covered by the

sea thirty-six years after the battle, has been identified by S.R. Rao in the submergedtown found next to the island of BeÇ DwÀrkÀ, dated to the mid-second millennium BCE.Also an inscribed shard has been found (here dated by thermoluminescence 3520 BP),in the same zone in which Lustrous Red Ware (generally dated up to 1400 BCE) andKassite Ware (dated in Bahrain 1500–1200 BCE) were present.19 As said by S.R. Rao, “itis possible to postulate on structural, ceramic and inscriptional evidence that DvÀrakÀwas built in the fifteenth century BCE when the sea level was lower than at present andwas submerged within a hundred years”.20 According to our chronology thesubmergence should have happened around 1396 BCE. In the same context, we can

observe that most Late HaÃappan sites in Gujarat have a break after 1400BCE

.21

This isstrikingly in agreement with the epic and PurÀõic tradition according to which just before the submergence of DvÀrakÀ fratricidal strife arose among the YÀdavas inPrabhÀsa, which compelled their king K¦Èõa to call Arjuna in order to take with himthe remnants of the YÀdavas to different places. It is said that Arjuna established aprince of them at MÀrttikÀvata (on the river Banas, cf. n. 58), another on the riverSarasvatÁ, and brought the bulk of the people to Indraprastha, where he placed Vajra,the surviving V¦Èõi prince, as king over them.22 Then it seems that most of the peopleliving in KÀÇhiÀwÀÃ and related provinces had to abandon that region for northernareas, where we find a continuity of Late HaÃappan and PGW cultures around 1400BCE, with a new concentration of settlements. The absence of PGW in the Gujarat sitesand their general abandonment after this period speak against the identification of thePGW phase with the MahÀbhÀrata age, since the cities of DvÀrakÀ and PrabhÀsa inKÀÇhiÀwÀÃ have a crucial importance in the story narrated in the poem.

building is described in 1.55.29-35. In the last stanza, it receives the name of Indraprastha.

For the burning of the forest, see Singh 2004: 88 and MBh 1.225-236 in Ganguli’s translation.

Singh (2004: 53) asserts that KhÀõçavaprastha was already the capital of the ancient king

YayÀti (generation 6, 3120 BCE), but in MBh 5.112.9 his capital is PratiÈÇhÀna, which is placed

at the confluence of Ganges and YamunÀ, cf. Pargiter 1922: 85-86, 258-59; it corresponds to

the modern site of Jhusi, recently excavated and found to be inhabited since the eighthmillennium BCE. See Pal 2008: 265-66, 277.

19 Rao 1988: 47-52; 1991: 272-73.20 Rao 1988: 52.21 Kenoyer 2006: 36-37.22 Pargiter 1922: 284; Singh 2004: 67; MBh 16.8.65-70.




In the same period K¦Èõa died, and this event is traditionally identified as the beginning of the Kali Yuga, the fourth age of the PurÀõic philosophy of history. With

reference to the different yugas, there is an interesting tradition about the most importantsacred places of pilgrimage: whereas in the earlier DvÀpara Yuga, KurukÈetra was themain tÁrtha, in the Kali Yuga it was the Ganges.23 This seems reflected in the shift of thesettlements, after the Late HaÃappan period (when there was a concentration in Haryana

between the SarasvatÁ and the D¦ÈadvatÁ24), to the Gangetic Doab, where we have thecentre of OCP and PGW cultures, and where the Early Historic sites will flourish.Archaeologically, the beginning of the Kali Yuga seems then to be connected with theend of the HaÃappan or Sindhu–SarasvatÁ civilization and with the arising of the newGangetic civilization.

Having thus ascertained the agreement of the date 1432 BCE for the MahÀbhÀrata battle with the archaeological panorama, we can proceed to the chronologicaldetermination of some important kings and related ¦Èis of the traditional history. Forthat purpose, we will give nineteen years to every generation, accepting the averagefound by Pargiter comparing fourteen known royal dynasties.25 The first that we wouldlike to determine is the famous king SudÀsa, celebrated in various hymns of †gveda,26

particularly in the hymns alluding to the battle of the ten kings (VII.18; VII.33; VII.83).In the PurÀõas he is called SudÀsa and belongs to the North PaðcÀla dynasty; Pargiterassigns to him the generation 68 from Manu, twenty-seven generations before the battle,that means approximately 513 years before 1432 BCE, therefore SudÀsa would havelived around 1947 BCE. According to Pargiter,27 SudÀsa is the PaðcÀla king mentionedin MahÀbhÀrata28 who defeated the Paurava king SaÚvaraõa, compelled to leaveHastinÀpura for the river Sindhu. In †V VII.18, the †Èi VasiÈÇha exalts SudÀsa’s victory

23 Pargiter 1922: 313; cf. MBh 3.85 in Ganguli’s translation.24 Parpola and Koskikallio 1994, vol. II: 513-14, 613.25 Pargiter 1922: 181-82. He prefers to reduce this average to eighteen years per generation,

because he noticed that the eastern dynasties had a lower average, but we have found that

the approximation of nineteen years fits better with the archaeological context (particularly

in the case of Arjuna Haihaya) and we cannot rule out that in the Mature HaÃappan period

the kings lived longer than in the later period of decline and conflicts.26 For a full list see Talageri 2000: 60.27 Pargiter 1922: 172, 281.28 MBh 1.89.31-33:

ÀrkÈe saÚvaraõe rÀjan praœÀsati vasuÚdharÀm|saÚkÈayaÍ sumahÀn ÀsÁt prajÀnÀm iti œuœrumaÍ||




with the Bharatas and T¦tsus29 against an alliance of ten kings on the river ParuÈõÁ(RÀvÁ), including Œimyus, Turvaœas, YakÈus (probably indicating the Yadus30), PÂrus,

Druhyus, Anus, Pakthas, BhalÀnas, AlÁõas, ViÈÀnins and Œivas; another victorious battlewas fought against King Bheda, the Ajas, the Œigus and the YakÈus on the river YamunÀ.

Thus the above territory is delimited by the RÀvÁ on the west and the YamunÀ on theeast, corresponding to the region of the SarasvatÁ and Sutlej valleys. After 2000–1900 BCE

this region was an area of Late HaÃappan settlements, associated with the so-called“Cemetery H culture” (see fig. 6.1),31 from the particular burials found at HaÃappÀ, whichwas on the river RÀvÁ. There are two different strata of the cemetery H burials, the earlier(Stratum II) has “earth burials” more similar to the mature HaÃappan burials but with adifferent pottery, showing some shapes similar to vessels from sites in Baluchistan and

Afghanistan.32

We can notice that among the peoples mentioned in †V VII.18 there are

vyaœÁryata tato rÀÈÇraÚ kÈayair nÀnÀvidhais tathÀ|kÈunm¦tyubhyÀm anÀv¦ÈÇyÀ vyÀdhibhiœ ca samÀhatam|abhyaghnan bhÀratÀÚœ caiva sapatnÀnÀÚ balÀni ca||

cÀlayan vasudhÀÚ caiva balena caturaôgiõÀ|abhyayÀt taÚ ca pÀðcÀlyo vijitya tarasÀ mahÁm|akÈauhiõÁbhir daœabhiÍ sa enaÚ samare ’jayat||

“While SaÚvaraõa the son of †kÈa, O king, was ruling the earth, there was a very great loss

of people, so we have heard. The kingdom was shattered by manifold destructions in this

way: struck by death for starvation, by want of rain and diseases, and the troops of theenemies attacked the BhÀratas. And shaking the Earth, so to say, with a fourfold army (i.e.

made of chariots, elephants, knights and infantrymen), the PaðcÀla marched against him

(SaÚvaraõa), and, having quickly conquered the earth, he defeated him in battle with ten

akÈauhiõis (troops of tenths of thousands of soldiers).”29 The T¦tsus appear to be the same as the VasiÈÇhas (cf. †V VII.33.1 and VII.83.8; see Keith and

Macdonell 1912, vol. I: 320-21), allied with the BhÀratas of SudÀsa (†V VII.33.6).

The PaðcÀlas of the late Vedic, epic and PurÀõic traditions are not mentioned in †gveda (cf.

Keith and Macdonell 1912, vol. I: 468-69. It is noteworthy that ŒB 13.5.4.7 says that the

PaðcÀlas were previously called “Krivi”. This name is found in †gveda (VIII.20.24; VIII.22.12;

VIII.51.8), and in the first case it is associated with the river Sindhu. As the eighth maõçala is

recognized as later than the seventh, we can think that here Krivi is a “PaðcÀla” prince whoreached the Indus in the westward expansion of this tribe.30 Because Yadu in †gveda is usually associated with Turvaœa. Cf. Keith and Macdonell 1912,

vol. I: 315, 320, n. 4.31 Image coming from http://www.harappa.com/indus2/180.html. As noted on the map, it

appears to be based on the data published by M.R. Mughal in 1990.32 Kenoyer 2005: 28-30.




the Pakthas, generally identified as the ancestors of modern Pakhtuns or Pashtuns of

Afghanistan and Waziristan,33

and the BhalÀnas, which have been connected with theBolan pass in Pakistan,34 at the eastern border of Baluchistan, in a very important areafor South Asian archaeology, since the ancient Neolithic site of MehrgaÃh is there located.So, we can suppose that the presence of these warriors from Afghanistan and Baluchistanleft some traces in the pottery of the Stratum II burials at HaÃappÀ, in the period just afterthe battle of the ten kings. S.P. Gupta observed about these burials:

The population was mixed, a part of it consisted of the displaced Harappans and a part

of the people of a new wave. They were all settling down. The extended, or even slightly

33

Keith and Macdonell 1912, vol. I: 463-64. Also Herodotus speaks about (VII.65),and (III.102; IV.44), referred to the region of this people, close to the Indus and to

, which must be the same as , town of GandhÀra according to

Hecataeus, probably identifiable with Peshawar (Kramers 1954: 369-72). In south-eastern

Afghanistan there are still two provinces called “Paktia” and “Paktika”, names which show

a close resemblance to the ancient “Paktha”.34 Keith and Macdonell 1912, vol. II: 99.

fig. 6.1: Major sites and cultural areas of the Indus tradition, Localization Era




flexed, style of burials was the HaÃappan way of placing the body but not the completely

flexed type. Moreover, the earth burials certainly appeared with the new comers.35

About the reason of all this movement of peoples, we can observe that MahÀbhÀrataspeaks of a period of drought and famine, which can have something to do with climaticchanges,36 but the main apparent change was the beginning of the drying up of theSarasvatÁ with the shift of the Sutlej. SudÀsa, reigning on the region of these two rivers,probably had to search for new lands to compensate the loss in the lower SarasvatÁValley, and this compelled the neighbours to an alliance against him. But he hadapparently a superior military strength, and was able to win on the east and on thewest, conquering the area of HaÃappÀ, where we find later the new culture of cemeteryH stratum I, which reveals a different mode of disposal of the dead in closed jars after

exposure, a new ware and a slightly different kind of population.37

In the past it has been thought that it was a new population coming from west, namely the Aryaninvaders,38 and it has been remarked that the new pottery had traditional HaÃappan

35 Gupta and Roy Choudhury 1972: 78. Ibidem: 288-89, in the Stratum II the presence of a brachycephalic 79-cranial index people is observed, together with a mesocephalic 75 and adolicocephalic 71, typical of the Mature HaÃappan R37 cemetery. Ibidem: 302-03, it is assertedthat the range of cranial index 77-79 (ascribed by Kappers to Scytho-Iranians) is very highamong the present Iranian population.

36

It results (from pollen sequences and submarine samplings) that the general process of aridization of the third millennium BCE culminated around 2250–1900 BCE , also in CentralAsia, which could have provoked also migrations from Afghanistan (Vidale 2010: 132-33;Potts 1999: 19-22; Kohl 2009: 188-89).

37 According to Sarkar, cited in Gupta and Roy Choudhury 1972: 287-89, the predominantcranial index of cemetery H1 was 76, mesocranial, but in the diagram we find also a 72 andeven a 68 cranial index for some cemetery H1 samples. Hemphill, Lukacs and Kennedy 1991:150-53, compared the skulls of two cemeteries of the Mature HaÃappan period, R37A andR37C, and the two strata of the cemetery H. It appeared that the males of the cemetery H1(jar burials) had more affinities with the males of the cemetery R37C than with those of thecemetery R37A, and that the females of the cemetery H1 had only peripheral affinities to

other samples from northern Pakistan.In another comparison ibidem: 156-60 with some Egyptian and Near Eastern samples, thetwo Mature HaÃappan cemeteries are considered together: “Lower (earth) burials at CemeteryH (H2) possess closest affinities to the HaÃappan phase cemetery and TÁmargaÃha, but upper(jar) burials from Cemetery H (H1) exhibit equally close affinities to these samples as to theAnatolian sample from Chatal Hüyük.” Ibidem: 160.

38 See Kennedy 2000: 315-16, 367.




motifs (like peacocks, bulls and pÁpal leaves), but also parallels for some shapes anddesigns in the general BMAC area, in northern Afghanistan and northern Iran.39 We

can also suppose that the custom of exposing the dead, shown by the jar burials, istypical of the Iranians, as in Zoroastrism. The Cemetery H pottery was distributed ineastern Punjab and farther east, and as far north as SwÀt,40 but the main concentrationis, besides HaÃappÀ, in the lower SarasvatÁ Valley in the Bahawalpur (Cholistan) region,whereas east of KÀlÁbaôgan, the upper SarasvatÁ Valley, and the valleys of the Chautang(D¦ÈadvatÁ) and the Sutlej, present rather Mature HaÃappan and Pre-HaÃappantraditions.41 According to A. Ghosh, the Cemetery H culture “does not seem to havehad any significant role in the late HaÃappÀ period of India”.42 Possehl calls “CemeteryH” the Late HaÃappan culture of Cholistan, but simply “Posturban” or “Late HaÃappan

Phase in Haryana and Western Uttar Pradesh” the corresponding culture of the easterndomain.43 Then, we can hypothesize that the “Cemetery H culture” had actually somewestern (Iranian) influences, but they mingled with the local culture and were notprevalent in the central area of the Vedic culture, the plain between SarasvatÁ andD¦ÈadvatÁ, where we find a continuity of the local traditions.

It is interesting that, according to Talageri,44 comparing †gveda and Avesta in thelate books of †gveda we find traces of the development of a common Indo-Iranianculture, which would have brought, for instance, the figure of Yama into the Vedicmythology. Talageri suggests that this common culture was linked to a westwardmovement of the Vedic Aryans,45 and the Bharatas are described by a †Èi ViœvÀmitra,

39 McIntosh 2008: 99. Cf. Allchin 1982: 246-49, where the burial jars of cemetery H1 are comparedwith styles of pottery of western Iran, like Tepe Giyan II/III, Tepe Djamshidi II and Susa D,and it is suggested that there was an “integration of existing potter communities withnewcomers whoever they were” (ibidem: 248). It is interesting that Tepe Djamshidi II isplaced in 1550–1400 BCE (ibidem: 249), whereas a radiocarbon date for the cemetery Hassemblage is 1730 BCE (Possehl 2002: 241). Then, these Iranian styles are also posterior to thecemetery H pottery: if they are not an evolution of local styles, we should wonder if thedirection of the borrowing could not also be from east to west, from India to Iran, in thesame period of the beginning of the Mitanni kingdom in northern Mesopotamia.

40 McIntosh 2008: 99.41 Lal et al. 2003: 7.42 Ghosh 1989, vol. I: 72.43 Possehl 2002: 29, 241.44 Talageri 2008: 43-49.45 Talageri 2008: 81-98. At p. 98 he affirms: “The Vedic Aryans expanded from an Eastern

Homeland (east of the SarasvatÁ) in the Early Period to areas west of the Indus, areas totally




in †V III.33, as proceeding through the rivers ŒutudrÁ (Sutlej) and VipÀœÀ (Beas). TheCemetery H culture could thus be a reflection of that period of exchange between

Vedic Indo-Aryans (BhÀrata-Pauravas) and Iranians, substituting (with some continuity)in Punjab and Cholistan the previous Mature HaÃappan culture, that should be relatedto the °õavas (see below). The battle of the ten kings would then be at the end of theMature HaÃappan period, in a period of crisis, which must have left some traces in thehistorical memory; actually, besides the aforementioned description of the great distresspreceding the battle of SaÚvaraõa, we have another passage of MahÀbhÀrata (12.139.13-24) which recounts of a terrible drought, lasting twelve years, at the connection of TretÀ and DvÀpara Yuga (tretÀdvÀparayoÍ saÚdhau purÀ daivavidhikramÀt anÀv¦ÈÇir abhÂd

ghorÀ rÀjan dvÀdaœavÀrÈikÁ ). The rivers shrank into streamlets (nadyaÍ saÚkÈiptatoyaughÀÍ),

lakes, wells and springs appeared bereft of their splendour (sarÀÚsi saritaœ caiva kÂpÀÍ prasravaõÀni ca hatatviÇkÀny alakÈyanta). Agriculture and keep of cattle were given up,markets and shops were abandoned (utsannak¦ÈigorakÈyÀ niv¦ttavipaõÀpaõÀ). Skeletonswere scattered (asthikaôkÀlasaÚkÁrõÀ), the greatest cities became empty of inhabitants,villages and hamlets were burnt down (œÂnyabhÂyiÈÇhanagarÀ dagdhagrÀmaniveœanÀ). Theearth was bereft of cattle and goats and sheep and buffaloes, and everyone took fromthe other ( gojÀvimahiÈair hÁnÀ parasparaharÀharÀ). Herbs and plants were destroyed( pranaÈÇauÈadhisaÚcayÀ). In that period of terror, when righteousness was lost, men inhunger began to wander eating one another (tasmin pratibhaye kÀle kÈÁõe dharme yudhiÈÇhira

babhramuÍ kÈudhitÀ martyÀÍ khÀdantaÍ sma parasparam).

It is difficult to imagine a period better corresponding to this description than theend of the mature Sindhu–SarasvatÁ phase. Many cities like Moheôjo-DaÃo, KoÇ DÁjÁ,DholÀvÁrÀ, GanwerÁwÀlÀ, KÀlÁbaôgan, RÀkhÁgaÃhÁ were deserted. The region of Kullihas no post-urban sites, in Sindh they drop from eighty-six Mature HaÃappan to six“Jhukar” sites, in Cholistan from 174 Mature HaÃappan to fourty-one “Cemetery H”sites, in Gujarat from 310 SoraÇh HaÃappan to 198 Late SoraÇh HaÃappan sites. Only inthe eastern domain (including eastern Punjab, Haryana and western Uttar Pradesh)

unknown to them earlier, by the Late Period.” The early period includes the third and seventh book of †gveda, which include descriptions of the Battle of the Ten Kings, the late periodincludes Maõçalas V, I, VIII, IX, X. Some conclusions of Talageri do not seem compelling, forinstance the identification of the °õavas with the Iranians and their collocation in Punjab:the Pakthas should be seen rather as an example of an Iranian people, already living in themountainous areas which are now between Afghanistan and Pakistan (cf. n. 33), butdescending into the Punjab at the time of the battle of the ten kings.




there is an increase of sites (from 218 to 853), 46 and this was precisely the area of SudÀsa’s kingdom and later of the Kurus (this dynasty begins from generation seventy-

one, around 1890 BCE). As written by S. Ratnagar:

Abandonment can be caused by a rise in the death rate of a residential community due to

epidemic, famine for several years, or floods, or else because the inhabitants find better soils

or better social conditions elsewhere. In this case all that we know is that few HaÃappan

places remained settled in later periods, that new villages were founded in adjacent

areas, and that some jewellery caches and heavy items like stone columns bases and

mortars were left behind, together with vandalized stone statuary. There is also the

matter of about thirty-five skeletons found in the last levels of Moheôjo-DaÃo [. . .] Some

of them were hastily buried [. . .] as if the times were so bad that the dead could not be

taken out of the cemetery. In the northern part of the lower city, two skeletons lay onsome steps of a well room. They lay where they had died, as did a group of five people

in the south-western part of the city. Other unburied skeletons seem to indicate that

marauders from outside, or city gangs themselves, fought over the last spoils.47

Also about the earlier level of Cemetery H at HaÃappÀ, S.P. Gupta noticed:

The earth burials of Stratum II were found laid in all directions, and they display far less

care than that the HaÃappan bestowed on their dead. The accompanying pots, as also the

copper and shell objects exhibit an overall poverty.48

This period of distress was clearly epochal and was recorded as the passage from

TretÀ to DvÀpara Yuga, an age characterized by decay, war and confusion, and also bydroughts, diseases and uprisings.49 At the beginning of the same intermediate period(sandhi) is placed in MahÀbhÀrata the birth of RÀma (son of Daœaratha),50 who accordingto Pargiter reigned in the generation 65, that is around 2000 BCE. The AikÈvÀku king,having his capital at AyodhyÀ on the Sarayu, belongs to a different geographical area,

46 Possehl 2002: 237.47 Ratnagar 2001: 142-43.48 Gupta and Roy Choudhury 1972: 78.49 Eltsov 2008: 159.50 MBh 12.326.78:

saÚdhau tu samanuprÀpte tretÀyÀÚ dvÀparasya ca|

rÀmo dÀœarathir bhÂtvÀ bhaviÈyÀmi jagatpatiÍ ||

“When the junction of TretÀ and DvÀpara will be arrived, I (ViÈõu), born as RÀma DÀœarathÁ,will become lord of the world.”




which can be characterized in this period by the OCP-Copper Hoard culture,51 butthat statement of the epic tradition would confirm that the DvÀpara Yuga came soon

after the beginning of the second millennium BCE. Considering that the Kali Yuga began at the end of the Late HaÃappan period, we can conclude that the so-called LateHaÃappan phase can be equated with the DvÀpara Yuga in the epic and PurÀõicsubdivision of history. As previously observed, in this age KurukÈetra was particularlysacred, and according to archaeology the Late HaÃappan period has a concentration of settlements in that region, corresponding to modern Haryana. Politically, this region

became part of the new Kuru kingdom, which included also the Upper Doab, butreligiously it was sacred because of the two rivers SarasvatÁ and D¦ÈadvatÁ, whichwere still present in this northern area close to the sources in the Shivalik mountains,

and which were still important for the Sattra rituals at the age of PaðcaviÚœa BrÀhmaõa(25.10). According to Manu-Sm¦ti 2.17, this region is the BrahmÀvarta, where the properconduct of the different castes has been handed down: this means that there was thecore of the Vedic orthodox culture. In MBh 3.81.177 the same region is saidbrahmarÈisevita, which means “frequented by BrÀhmaõic ¦Èis”; then, the authors of the†gvedic hymns were associated with it. Since DivodÀsa, of generation 63 (2036 BCE), isone of the most ancient kings mentioned as contemporary in the hymns (and only inMaõçala VI52 ), and the last king mentioned is probably ŒÀntanu, of generation 90(1527 BCE), the †gvedic period comprehends mainly the end of the TretÀ and theDvÀpara Yuga, the †gvedic area centred in the BrahmÀvarta or KurukÈetra, and the

“Vedic HaÃappans” appear mainly as the Late HaÃappans.Pargiter so reported about the development of the Vedas:53

51 See Shashi 1998: 210-12, where K. Kumar observes that OCP has been found in some sitesassociated with RÀmÀyaõa, like Œ¦ôgaverapura and VÀlmÁki °œrama, and that the route throughwhich the copper antennae weapons had spread closely corresponds to the journey of RÀmafrom AyodhyÀ to RÀmesvaram. Cf. Lal 2008: 30, which reports that the charcoal samplescollected from the lower NBPW levels of AyodhyÀ have also dates of the second millenniumBCE

(the earliest calibrated date is 1980–1320BCE

). Anyway, it is not necessary that the presentsite of AyodhyÀ was already at that time the capital of the AikÈvÀku kings, moreover thearea of Kosala has a site like Lahuradewa, inhabited by a Neolithic culture since the seventhmillennium BCE and presenting copper artifacts from the early third millennium BCE (Tewariet al. 2008).

52 Talageri 2000: 62.53 Pargiter 1922: 316-17. Cf. MBh 12.330.37-39.




By the time of King Brahmadatta of South PaðcÀla the collections of hymns appear tohave been largely constituted, for they were definitely combined into a whole by his

two ministers, KaõçarÁka (or PuõçarÁka) and SubÀlaka (or GÀlava) BÀbhravya PÀðcÀla.KaõçarÁka is described as dvi-veda, chÀndoga and adhvaryu, and as the promulgator( pravartaka) of the Veda-œÀstra. BÀbhravya PÀðcÀla was bahv¦ca and ÀcÀrya and knew allthe ŒÀstras; he composed the ŒikÈÀ and instituted it; he also devised the Krama. [. . .]This tradition is corroborated by the statement in Vedic literature that BÀbhravya PÀðcÀlawas the author of the KramapÀÇha of the †k-SaÚhitÀ, though it gives no clue to his positionor time.

According to Pargiter King Brahmadatta belongs to the generation 87, around 1584BCE. At this age, then, it seems that KaõçarÁka already mastered SÀmaveda (as shown

by the epithet chÀndoga) andYajurveda (the ritual branch proper of the adhvaryu), whereasBÀbhravya was expert in †gveda (bahv¦ca means “knowing many †gvedic stanzas”), sothat he could be remembered as the author of the Krama (step by step) reading of thehymns, combining the normal continuous reading of the SaÚhitÀpÀÇha with theseparated words of the PadapÀÇha; this shows also his interest in the ŒikÈÀ or phonetics.But the hymn of DevÀpi (†V X.98), brother of ŒÀntanu, must be later than Brahmadatta’sministers, and the hymns †V IX.5-24 are attributed to Asita Devala, which appears asa contemporary of the PÀõçavas.54 Moreover, the epic and PurÀõic tradition assertsthat the final “edition” of the Vedas was due to “VyÀsa”, which means “arranger,compiler”, being the epithet of K¦Èõa DvaipÀyana, son of ParÀœara and father of PÀõçu.

It is said that he divided the Veda into four, and there are explicit statements that hecompiled †gveda.55According to Pargiter,56 he completed this work about a quarter of century before the MahÀbhÀrata battle, we can suppose around the middle of thefifteenth century BCE.

However, if the DvÀpara Yuga was the main period of the compilation of †gvedaSaÚhitÀ, as recognized by the tradition, it is also said that the mantras were put togetherin TretÀ Yuga, the same period that saw the institution of sacrifice and dharma.57

Actually, TretÀ Yuga is associated with the emergence of agriculture and sedentarycivilization, therefore it appears as the formative period of the Indian culture, when

we can imagine that also the religious poetry was developed together with the54 Pargiter 1922: 233-34. Cf. MBh 2.53.6; 3.13.43; 12.1.4.55 Pargiter 1922: 318, who cites (n. 5) this verse from VÀyuP 60.19 and BrahmÀõçaP II.34.19: tataÍ

sa ¦ca uddh¦tya ¦gvedaÚ samakalpayat “Then he, having chosen the stanzas, put together †gveda”.56 Pargiter 1922: 318. Following his chronology, he places this event “about 980 BCE”.57 Pargiter 1922: 177. Cf. Eltsov 2008: 158-59.




elaboration of rituals. Moreover, there are some great ¦Èis remembered in the tradition,reputed authors of some hymns, who can be chronologically determined, since they

are clearly associated with ancient kings of the genealogies. One is the founder of a gotra, ViœvÀmitra, who was a king, son of GÀdhi of KÀnyakubja, that decided to becomea brÀhmaõa through the ascetic practice (tapas). His contemporary was also the †Èi

Jamadagni (son of a daughter of GÀdhi with the †Èi †cÁka Aurva) and the KingSatyavrata Triœaôku of AyodhyÀ, who belongs to the generation 32, around 2627BCE. Archaeologically, this is the age of the transition from the Early to the MatureHaÃappan in the Sindhu–SarasvatÁ area, and maybe of the beginning of the OCPculture in the Doab, if we accept the aforementioned dating.58 However, this iseffectively a crucial period in the traditional history: the son of Jamadagni and ReõukÀ

(daughter of the AikÈvÀku KÈatriya Reõu), called RÀma, is remembered as thedestroyer of the kÈatriyas after the murder of his father by the sons of ArjunaKÀrttavÁrya, king of the Haihayas.59 These Haihayas are included among the YÀdavasand are connected with the city of MÀhiÈmatÁ on the river NarmadÀ,60 but their

58 It is noteworthy that RÀma JÀmadagnya is also associated with KurukÈetra, in MBh 3.81.19-

33, where the tÁrtha of RÀmahrada is associated with the legend of the lakes of blood created

by his slaughter of kÈatriyas (cf. MBh 1.2.2-7). Moreover, in Himachal Pradesh there are

many living traditions about Jamadagni, ReõukÀ and their son Paraœu-RÀma, who is reported

in BrahmÀõça PurÀõa as the founder, in the TretÀ Yuga, of a brÀhmaõa colony at Nirmand, on

the upper Sutlej (Kashyap 1984: 18-19). This is a living village with a particular temple called

koÇhÁ which has been compared with a HaÃappan citadel by P.C. Kashyap, who has alsocompared the form of houses, copper objects, female ornaments and burial practices (Kashyap

1984: 47-50). According to Kashyap, the hermitage of Jamadagni was at ReõukÀ Lake, at the

Shiwalik foothills in Sirmur (Himachal Pradesh, district NÀhan). But in MBh 3.116.6 we find

the interesting detail that ReõukÀ sees bathing near the hermitage the king Citraratha of

M¦ttikavatÁ or MÀrttikÀvata, which can be placed on the river ParõÀœa (modern Banas), cf.

Singh 2004: 64 and Pargiter 1922: 279. In this case, Jamadagni was living in the area of the

Early Chalcolithic of the Banas River (3200–2600 BCE, Kenoyer 2006: 38).59 Pargiter 1922: 199-200, 266-67. See MBh 1.2.3-4, 1.58.4-5, 1.98.1-3, 12.49.29-59, 12.326.77,

13.14.137-38. In this last passage we have a clear reference to the battle axe ( paraœu) which is

traditionally associated with RÀma JÀmadagnya in the PurÀõic tradition (cf. also MBh 12.49

in Ganguli’s translation). Archaeologically, the battle axe is present in the Copper Hoardsassociated with the OCP, and in various Chalcolithic sites of central and western India (Shashi

1998: 210). According to Ghosh 1989, vol. I: 176, the earliest specimen of copper axes has

been found in pre-HaÃappan levels at KÀlÁbaôgan.60 This city is said to have been founded by Mucukunda AikÈvÀku (generation 22, around 2800

BCE, see Pargiter 1922: 262), but to have taken the name from the Haihaya king MahiÈmant

(generation 23, see ibidem: 263), and it is also said that Arjuna had conquered it from the




conquests extended, according to Pargiter,61 from the Gulf of Cambay to the Doab,thence to Benares and finally AyodhyÀ. Arjuna is called a samrÀj and a cakravartin,62

i.e. an emperor of India, and in MBh 12.49.30-31 it is said hyperbolically that he burntall the earth made of seven continents together with the cities (dadÀha p¦thivÁÚ sarvÀÚ

saptadvÁpÀÚ sapattanÀm). In 12.49.33, we read that the fire, through his arrows, burnt thevillages, the towns, the camps of herdsmen and the cities ( grÀmÀn purÀõi ghoÈÀÚœ ca

pattanÀni ca vÁryavÀn jajvÀla tasya bÀõais), arriving up to the hermitage of the †Èi °pavaVasiÈÇha, which, according to Pargiter,63 was near the Himalayas. If we search in thearchaeological record for something corresponding to this exceptional devastation,we can notice that in some Early HaÃappan sites there are burnt levels before the arrivalof the Mature HaÃappan culture. At KoÇ DÁjÁ, as observed by the excavator F.A. Khan,

a thick deposit of burned and charred material, on top of layer, spreading over theentire site, completely sealed the lower levels (KoÇ DÁjÁ) from the upper ones (Mature

HaÃappans). This [. . .] strongly suggests that the last occupation level of the early settlers

(that is the KoÇ DÁjÁ) was violently disturbed, and probably totally burnt and destroyed.64

KarkoÇaka NÀgas of Deccan (ibidem: 266). It has been identified with MÀndhÀtÀ (present

OÚkÀreœvar, see ibidem: 153) or with Maheœvar in Madhya Pradesh, on the opposite river

bank of the important archaeological site of NavdÀtolÁ ; the archaeologist H.D. Sankalia has

dated the culture of Maheœvar–NavdÀtolÁ (also said “MÀlwÀ culture”) from 2000 BCE and has

connected the rising of the Haihayas with this culture (Singh 2004: 55-56). According to our

chronology, that Chalcolithic culture belongs to the period succeeding the famous YÀdava

king BhÁma SÀtvata (generation 66, around 1980 BCE, see Pargiter 1922: 279-80). It is interesting

that according to the calibrated C14 dating from NavdÀtolÁ cited in Liversage (1991: 201), we

have various dates of the MÀlwÀ culture between 2000 and 1600 BCE , but a fragment of an

unspecified culture is dated around 2900 BCE , which could correspond to the period of the

foundation of MÀhiÈmatÁ. Moreover, the slightly more northern site of Kayatha reports dates

next to 2400 BCE, whereas the sites (like Balathal) on the Banas River, which can be included

in the area of the YÀdavas, have a Chalcolithic presence since 3200 BCE (Kenoyer 2006: 38, cf.

n. 58).61 Pargiter 1922: 265-71. Cf. MBh 13.31 and 3.116.19, where Arjuna KÀrttavÁrya is said anÂpapati

“lord of AnÂpa”, word meaning “situated near the water, watery country”, which, according

to Pargiter, was at the mouth of the NarmadÀ River. Archaeologically, in that region wehave the HaÃappan ports of Mehgam and Bhagatrav, the last one assignable to the “early

Harappa period” (Ghosh 1958: 15).62 Pargiter 1922: 41.63 Pargiter 1922: 206.64 Cited in Possehl 2002: 48.




At AmrÁ, the transitional stage of Period II ended with signs of burning. At Nausharonear MehrgaÃh, the KoÇ DÁjÁan level I is capped by a burnt stratum containing ash,

debris, charcoal, and broken or reddened bricks. Also at GumlÀ, the KoÇ DÁjÁ occupationhas a thick layer of ash, charcoal, bones, potsherds separating Period III from thesucceeding Late KoÇ DÁjÁ, which is considered contemporary with the Mature HaÃappanculture.65 As observed by Possehl:

several points seem to be evident: The fires at these sites were large; this large-scale burning is associated with the Early HaÃappan–Mature HaÃappan junction; there is little,if any, evidence for such conflagrations at these or other sites in the region prior to orafter the Early HaÃappan–Mature HaÃappan junction. These observations point to a patternin the conflagrations, and, while it is true that fires begin for many reasons, a pattern like

this might be telling us that they have a common cause.66

We can think that this period of extensive burning of cities was remembered in thetradition as the work of Arjuna KÀrttavÁrya, the great conqueror of north India, thatPargiter assigned to the generation 31, then, according to our chronology, around 2646BCE, just before the recognized beginning of the Mature HaÃappan period. We caneven be tempted to assume that Arjuna was the founder of the great integration of theMature HaÃappan period, but the Haihayas had a more destructive than constructiverole: so Pargiter describes their behaviour after the time of RÀma JÀmadagnya:

They continued their raids and there is no suggestion that they founded new kingdoms

in the countries they overran. [. . .] The kingdom of AyodhyÀ was open to assault, andthe Haihayas attacked it with the co-operation of Œakas, Yavanas, KÀmbojas, PÀradasand Pahlavas from the north-west, and this fact shows that all the kingdoms betweenthe north-west and AyodhyÀ must have been overthrown. In fact, the long-continuedHaihaya devastations left north India a tempting prey to the hardy races of that frontier.67

This tradition can give us an alternative explanation for the destruction of the townson the western border of the Early HaÃappan civilization, like Nausharo and GumlÀ.And this invasion can also explain why later, in the Mature HaÃappan period, asobserved by Ratnagar,

communications down the Bolan route to Kandahar also appear to cease, with noperceivable links between Muõçigak and HaÃappan sites. It is as if a frontier were closed.68

65 Possehl 2002: 48-89; Ratnagar 2001: 133-34.66 Possehl 2002: 49-50.67 Pargiter 1922: 267-68.68 Ratnagar 2001: 135.




The period of disorder and destruction remembered as the invasion of Haihayas andnorth-western tribes (described mainly as Iranian), and associated with the fabulous

extermination of kÈatriyas effected by RÀma JÀmadagnya,69 can also be responsiblefor the change of the settlement pattern between the Early and Mature HaÃappan period.Ratnagar reports that of about 100 and 132 Early HaÃappan sites on which some dataare available, only twenty-eight sites have continuity of habitation during the MatureHaÃappan period. More specifically, of about fifty-eight KoÇ DÁjÁan sites in the plains

only 7 sites (3 in the Hakra plains, KoÇ DÁjÁ, Vainiwal, HaÃappÀ and GumlÀ) show continuityof occupation into the Mature HaÃappan period, and these do not include the largestsites like Rahman DherÁ, Gamanwal and Jalwali, which could have been the seats of developing chiefships.70

On the other side, it is now accepted that there are many elements of continuity betweenthe two periods, through the transitional phase, in pottery shapes and motifs,fortifications, water management and in the development of seals and writing.71 Wecan imagine that after the chaos created by the invasions, the invaders were repelledor absorbed, and the descendants of the inhabitants of the previous period creatednew settlements and a new order, probably with the guidance of new kingships anddynasties. According to Pargiter, the final victory against the Haihayas and foreigntribes was of Sagara king of AyodhyÀ (assigned to the generation 41, around 2456 BCE),who “extended his campaign and subdued all the other enemies in north India”.72

This is a PurÀõic tradition, evidently privileging the point of view of the Solar dynastyof AyodhyÀ. The fact that the Haihayas are described as raiding mainly over KÀœi andAyodhyÀ suggests that the Sindhu–SarasvatÁ area was no more open to their assaults,and that the Mature HaÃappan civilization had established a stable order. In Punjab,we know from the traditional history that the °õavas had founded new kingdoms,under UœÁnara and his son Œivi, which Pargiter assigns to the generations 27 and 28

69 There is an interesting passage of MahÀbhÀrata which recounts the return of the kÈatriyas

after their extermination by JÀmadagnya, bringing a new era of order and prosperity ( MBh

1.58.3-24), characterized by a dense population and described as a new K¦ta Yuga.70 Ratnagar 1991: 81, 86; cf. Possehl 2002: 50.71 See Gupta 1996: 68-78, where the “Great Transition” is placed in 2800–2600 BCE. Cf. Asthana

1983: 240-43; Gupta 1995: 184-88; Shaffer-Lichtenstein 1995: 140; McIntosh 2008: 80-83. Possehl

2002: 50-51 stresses more the differences between Early and Mature HaÃappan, but recognizes

a Transitional Stage, which he places in “c. 2600–2500 BCE”.72 Pargiter 1922: 270.




(2722 and 2703 BCE), but without the support of clear synchronisms. They areremembered as great kings in the PurÀõic and Vedic literature,73 and their people, the

UœÁnaras, are included in the central region (madhyamÀ diœ ) with Vaœas, Kurus andPaðcÀlas in Aitareya BrÀhmaõa 8.14, and are also mentioned in Gopatha BrÀhmaõa 2.9and KauÈÁtaki UpaniÈad 4.1. The Œivis or Œibis are to be identified with the Œivas of †V VII.18.7, and are also mentioned in the Greek sources as or .74 Among thedescendants of Œivi there are also the SauvÁras, regularly mentioned as “Sindhu-SauvÁra”, showing that most of the Indus Valley with the Punjab was ruled by the°nava royal dynasties, apparently developed during the Transitional phase from Earlyto Mature HaÃappan. The geographical area of the sites suggests that the “KoÇ DÁjÁphase”, present in Sindh and Punjab,75 is to be associated with the °nava tribe, whereas

the “SothÁ–SiswÀl phase”, present on the SarasvatÁ and D¦ÈadvatÁ rivers,76

is to beassociated with the Pauravas, who are described as living on the SarasvatÁ River in †V VII.96.2.77 Among the Pauravas, the first king in the Mature HaÃappan period appears

73 Pargiter 1922: 39-42. Cf. BŒS 18.49, where Œibi AuœÁnara is mentioned as victorious over theasuras, therefore rewarded by Indra. Cf. Keith and Macdonell 1912: 380.

74 See Arrian 5.12; Diodorus 17.19. Cf. Keith and Macdonell 1912: 103. According to Singh 2004:76, they lived in the region between RÀvÁ and Chenab, where an inscription has been foundmentioning “Sibipura”.

75 Possehl 1999: 625-63.76 According to the map of Possehl 1999: 682, the SothÁ–SiswÀl phase sites are placed mainly on

the D¦ÈadvatÁ (Chautang) and on the SarasvatÁ also west of KÀlÁbaôgan, up to the Indianfrontier in Rajasthan. On the Pakistani side, in Cholistan, we find instead the KoÇ DÁjÁ phasesites on the SarasvatÁ (ibidem: 626). This difference is apparently determined by the definitionmade by the Pakistani archaeologist M.R. Mughal about the sites he excavated in Cholistan, but we can cite Possehl’s observation (ibidem: 695): “All of the SothÁ–SiswÀl fabrics seem to be found in the Cholistan KoÇ DÁjÁ , as far as can be seen from M.R. Mughal’s illustrations.But, the fit is not perfect. [. . .] The Fabric D comb-incised wares appear to grow scarcer asone moves west and south out of the SarasvatÁ area. They are absent at KoÇ DÁjÁ.” Then, wecan admit that the Cholistan KoÇ DÁjÁ Phase is also related to the SothÁ–SiswÀl, then it could belong to a Paurava culture, even if probably more influenced by the near °õavas than thepeople of the upper valley. On the other hand, we can remember that in †V VI.61.12 the

SarasvatÁ River is said páðca jÀt˜ vardháyantÁ “giving prosperity to the five tribes”, whichinclude PÂrus, Anus, Druhyus, Yadus and Turvaœas.77 †V VII.96.2ab: ubhé yát te mahin˜ œubhre ándhasÁ adhikÈiyánti pÂrávaÍ. Griffith’s translation: “When

in the fullness of their strength the PÂrus dwell, Beauteous One, on thy two grassy banks”.

Another strong association of the Pauravas with the SarasvatÁ is evident in MBh 1.90.25-26,where the king MatinÀra Paurava (generation 19, 2874 BCE) performs a twelve years’ sattra onthe banks of the SarasvatÁ and SarasvatÁ herself appears in a human form and marries the




to be DuÈyanta, father of Bharata (generation 44, around 2400 BCE), who is anothercakravartin, whose territory according to MahÀbhÀrata stretched from the SarasvatÁ to

the Ganges, since he sacrificed on these two rivers and on the YamunÀ.78 Also AitareyaBrÀhmaõa 7.23 and Œatapatha BrÀhmaõa 13.5.4.11 report about his great sacrifices on theYamunÀ and the Ganges. We can remember that the Upper Doab was colonized duringthe Mature HaÃappan period, and in the Doab there was also the OCP culture after2650 BCE.79 It is noteworthy that the OCP of the Doab is similar to ceramics found inthe SarasvatÁ and D¦ÈadvatÁ valleys, known as “Late SiswÀl Ware” (which can beconsidered pre-Mature HaÃappan or contemporary with the Mature HaÃappan phase),suggesting a genetic relationship.80

Aitareya BrÀhmaõa 8.23 asserts moreover that the royal consecration of Bharata was

made by DÁrghatamas, the famous °ôgirasa †Èi reputed author of †V I.140-64. In†gveda we find often mention of the “BhÀratas” (the descendants of Bharata), generallyas the heroes and patrons of the poets, and we find Agni, the sacred fire, described as

belonging to the BhÀratas.81Bharata himself, in the only reference to him in †V VI.16.4,is said to have worshipped Agni in the past. It is interesting that the Maõçala VI is the

book of the BharadvÀjas, and that, according to the tradition, a BharadvÀja was adopted by Bharata as son.82 In †V III.23.2-4 we find two BhÀratas, DevavÀta and Devaœravas,kindling the fire on the SarasvatÁ and the D¦ÈadvatÁ.83 There is even a Goddess BhÀratÁ

king. Also YayÀti, the father of PÂru, is associated with the SarasvatÁ River in MBh 9.40.29-32, which tells about the TÁrtha YÀyÀta, where YayÀti NahuÈa, sacrificing, obtained from theSarasvatÁ milk and ghee. We find the same image in †V VII.95.2 (in a hymn to the sacredriver), where gh¦tám páyo duduhe n˜huÈÀya should be translated “[the SarasvatÁ] extractedfrom herself ghee and milk for the son of NahuÈa”.

78 MBh 12.29.41. See Pargiter 1922: 273.79 TL date of a sherd from JhinjhÀnÀ, Muzaffarnagar district (Ghosh 1989: 175).80 Tripathi 2005: 225-26, 229-30; cf. Shashi 1998: 207-08; Possehl 1999: 699-700.81 Talageri 2000: 145.82 Pargiter 1922: 159.83 †V III.23.2-4:

ámanthiÈÇÀm bh˜ratÀ revád agníÚ deváœravÀ devávÀtaÍ sudákÈam|ágne ví paœya b¦hat˜bhí rÀyéÈ˜Í no net˜ bhavatÀd ánu dyšn||

dáœa kÈípaÍ pÂrvyáÚ sÁm ajÁjanan sújÀtam mÀt¨Èu priyám|agníÚ stuhi daivavÀtáÚ devaœravo yó jánÀnÀm ásad vaœ™||

ní tvÀ dadhe vára ˜ p¦thivy˜ íÒÀyÀs padé sudinatvé áhnÀm|d¦ÈádvatyÀm m˜nuÈa Àpay˜yÀÚ sárasvatyÀÚ revád agne didÁhi||




(belonging to the BhÀratas), regularly associated with SarasvatÁ in the AprÁ hymns,showing the centrality of the river and of the Bharata dynasty for the †gvedic poets.

This centrality, which has been fixed in the tradition with the notion of BrahmÀvarta, iswell explained if we accept that the †gvedic culture has its roots in the “SothÁ–SiswÀlphase” of the Early HaÃappan period of that area. As is known, one of the chief sitesassociated with this phase is KÀlÁbaôgan, at the confluence of the SarasvatÁ and theD¦ÈadvatÁ, where the “fire-altars” have been found. This culture established a strongrelation with the °õava culture of Punjab and Sindh during the Mature HaÃappanperiod, but keeping its specificity. As observed by Possehl:

There is a growing sense among the archaeologists involved with the Indus Civilization

that the HaÃappan world in the east, beyond KÀlÁbaôgan is a separate, different place

from the HaÃappan world of Sindh and the West Punjab. It is of the Mature HaÃappan, of course, but the Sothi–Siswal heritage in this region may well be quite different from the

Early HaÃappan elsewhere. [. . .] Artefacts and architecture strongly suggest that they

were part of the HaÃappan Civilization, but were a distinctive regional manifestation or

“sub-culture” [. . .].84

This “sub-culture” expanded towards the Doab already in the Mature HaÃappanperiod, preparing the future Kuru-PaðcÀla civilization characterized by the PGW, butit kept its centre in the upper SarasvatÁ area during the whole Late HaÃappan phase,85

corresponding to a great part of the †gvedic period.

In the epic tradition, not only Bharata is remembered as a conqueror, but also oneof his next descendants, Suhotra, who is listed among the sixteen celebrated monarchs86

Griffith’s translation: “2. Both Bharatas, Devaœravas, DevÀvata, have strongly rubbed to lifeeffectual Agni. O Agni, look thou forth with ample riches: be, every day, bearer of food tofeed us. 3. Him nobly born of old the fingers ten produced, him whom his Mothers counteddear. Praise DevÀvata’s Agni, thou Devaœravas, him who shall be the people’s Lord. 4. Heset thee in the earth’s most lovely station, in IÒÀ’s place, in days of fair bright weather. Onman, on °payÀ, Agni! on the rivers D¦Èadvati, SarasvatÁ, shine richly.”

Instead of “on man”, we should translate “on MÀnuÈa”, which was a famous place inKurukÈetra, mentioned as a tÁrtha in MBh 3.81.53-55.

84 Possehl 1999: 713.85 V.N. Misra, in Parpola and Koskikallio 1994, vol. II: 513, reports that the Late HaÃappan in

Haryana has 297 sites, in Uttar Pradesh 132 sites. Possehl and Mehta (ibidem: 613), reportthat the Post-Urban HaÃappan phase in Haryana has 404 sites with an average size of 2.71 ha,in Uttar Pradesh 208 sites with an average size of 2.51 ha.

86 Pargiter 1922: 39.




87

Tewari et al. 2006: 52, 61; 2008: 350, 353, 362-63.88 About the continuity of skeletal types from the HaÃappan period up to the present, see

Gupta and Choudhury 1972: 292-305; Gupta 1996: 156-57; Ghosh 1989, vol. I: 317-18. Aboutthe genetic research, see Sengupta et al. 2006, that remarks: “The ages of accumulatedmicrosatellite variation in the majority of Indian haplogroups exceed 10,000–15,000 years,which attests to the antiquity of regional differentiation. Therefore, our data do not supportmodels that invoke a pronounced recent genetic input from Central Asia to explain the

and is associated with a period of great prosperity in MBh 1.89.22-25, where it is saidthat he took possession of all the earth (suhotraÍ p¦thivÁÚ sarvÀÚ bubhuje), which was

full of elephants, horses and chariots and exceedingly covered by men(hastyaœvarathasaÚpÂrõÀ manuÈyakalilÀ bh¦œam), prosperous in people and crops( prav¦ddhajanasasyÀ). It is also interesting that he married an AikÈvÀku princess, showinghis contacts with the eastern regions. He belongs to generation 50, around 2285 BCE, inthe middle of the Mature HaÃappan period, and we have evidence of HaÃappaninfluence even as far east as Lahuradewa, near Gorakhpur in Uttar Pradesh, where thelevel IB has given a dish-on-stand (a variation of the HaÃappan ones) and the firstappearance of domesticated barley in a rice-growing culture, with the calibrated dateof 2345–2200 BCE. At Damdama in PratÀpgaÃh district (on the western side of the

AikÈvÀku kingdom of Kosala), the domesticated barley is dated 2578–2458BCE

.Conversely, in Haryana and Punjab the rice arrives in an area of wheat and barleycultivation already from 2850 BCE. These simple facts appear as a testimony of earlyinteractions between the two areas.87

So, we have tried to trace a sketch of the possible correlations between Vedic, epicand PurÀõic traditions on one side and the data from the excavations of the Sindhu–SarasvatÁ Civilization and beyond. We find that the comparison is possible and useful,and that the richness of the tradition, analysed with a careful critical method, is not to

be ignored in order to better understand the archaeological record. What emerges is acoherent picture of a continuous evolution with some crucial passages marked byquite radical changes caused by environmental problems and conflicts. These periodsof crisis changed the balance of the different forces acting in north India, forces whichcan receive an identity only through the traditional history. In this history, foreigninvasions are not totally absent, but are not responsible for significant cultural changes.The Iranian tribes associated with the Haihaya raids and the western peoples of theBattle of the Ten Kings arrived in the south Indian plains and certainly left some traces,

but they could not take the power and impose a new language and religion. As isshown also by the anthropological and genetic record,88 the local people has a general




continuity, and the fight for power was essentially between forces already inside SouthAsia. As shown from archaeology by scholars like Shaffer, Lichtenstein and Eltsov,

continuity is apparent between the Sindhu–SarasvatÁ and the Gangetic Civilization,and a parallel continuity is affirmed by the tradition. This continuity was made possible

by the BrÀhmaõic class, which depended on the kÈatriyas, but was able to forge theirreligion and ethics, and to cultivate an autonomous space of culture, supported bythe Vedic canon. Surely also a kÈatriya culture existed, made of the epics and ballads,

but also this culture was taken by the brÀhmaõas, like VyÀsa and the PaurÀõikas. Itseems that after every crisis, the brÀhmaõas reconstructed the lost dharma,89 the ethical,religious and social order, and it is just at the end of the Sindhu–SarasvatÁ Civilizationthat the canonization of the Vedas is completed. After this, there are no more †gvedic

¦Èis, the creative role of these religious poets is concluded, because a new order has to be established. The period of the BrÀhmaõas and the SÂtras begins, the age of thetheologians, of the experts of ritual and law. The direct relationship with the godstypical of the ¦Èis, fundamental in an age of conflicting tribes like the †gvedic period,in order to assure the divine help to the aristocratic patron, has to be substituted by animpersonal ritual sanctioning a stable order. The warlike Indra leaves the central placewhich he enjoyed in the early †gveda to the cosmogonic PrajÀpati of the BrÀhmaõas,and a special importance is given to a transcendent salvation (thesvargaloka or “heavenlyworld”) rather than to the victory over the enemies. This is not a fact of sedentarizationof nomadic invaders, but the creation of a new order after a deep crisis, and a natural

evolution of human civilization towards a more rational and reflective attitude,analogous to what we can see in the Jewish religion from the prophetic to the rabbinicperiod, or in the Greek cultural history from the Homeric to the Hellenistic culture.According to the PurÀõic view, it was a process of decay and confusion from a previoussituation of ideal simplicity, and studying the passage from the Mature HaÃappan tothe succeeding periods we can understand the impression of decline that was

observed genetic variation in South Asia.” See also Reich et al. 2009, a general study of Indian populations, which shows that the “Ancestral North Indians” are more close to MiddleEasterners, Central Asians and Europeans than the “Ancestral South Indians”, but their

genes are well present also in Dravidian and tribal Indian populations; moreover, this studyestimates that the Ancestral North Indians came to the subcontinent 45,000 years ago.89 A significant story in this context is that of the †Èi SÀrasvata, in MBh 9.50.35-50, where the

young brÀhmaõa, during a drought of twelve years, is able to keep the knowledge andrecitation of the Vedas, living on the fishes of the SarasvatÁ, while the other ¦Èis wandered insearch of food. At the end of the drought, they have to listen to the young SÀrasvata in orderto recover the forgotten Vedas.




systematized in the scheme of the four yugas. But if we look without the conservatismof the PaurÀõikas, every yuga appears to be a reaction to new challenges, and the

beginning of Kali Yuga appears not as the period of total disorder, but rather of thedevelopment of a more peaceful ideology, culminating in the ideal of non-violence of the religious movements of the Early Historic period. Thus, the combined study of the Sindhu–SarasvatÁ Civilization and of the Vedic, epic and PurÀõic literature givesus an interesting example of how humanity can manage change and shows us how theIndian civilization developed in different phases. These phases were already knownin the Indological scheme which distinguished between Vedism, Brahmanism, and soon, but without a real historical frame, which can be furnished only through theindigenous historical tradition and the increasingly clear and articulate picture of

modern archaeology. Surely, a lot of work needs to be done in order to betterunderstand the context of the historical figures described in the texts, and to refine thecomparison between tradition and archaeology; particularly the earliest civilizationof the Gangetic area needs more study and excavations in order to verify the richtraditions connected with it. However, we find that the comparisons here presentedshould encourage this line of study of the South Asian past.

References

Allchin, B. and R., 1982, The Rise of Civilization in India and Pakistan , Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Asthana, S., 1985, Pre-HaÃappan Cultures of India and the Borderlands, New Delhi: Books and Books.Eltsov, P.A., 2008, From Harappa to Hastinapura: A Study of the Earliest South Asian City and Civilization,

Boston and Leiden: Brill.

Ghosh, A. (ed.), 1958, Indian Archaeology 1957-58: A Review , New Delhi: Department of Archaeology.

———, 1989, An Encyclopaedia of Indian Archaeology, vol. 2, New Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal.

Gupta, S.P. and D. Roy Choudhury, 1972, Disposal of the Dead and Physical Types in Ancient India,Delhi: Oriental Publishers.

Gupta, S.P. and K.S. Ramachandran (eds.), 1976, MahÀbhÀrata: Myth and Reality: Differing Views ,Delhi: Agam Prakashan.

——— , 1995, The “Lost” Sarasvati and Indus Civilization, Jodhpur: Kusumanjali Prakashan.Gupta, S.P., 1996, The Indus–Saraswati Civilization, Delhi: Pratibha Prakashan.

Hemphill, B.E., J.R. Lukacs and K.A.R. Kennedy, 1991, “Biological Adaptations and Affinities of Bronze Age HaÃappans”, in Harappa Excavat ions 1986-1990: A Multidisciplinary Approach to

Third Millennium Urbanism, ed. R.H. Meadow, pp. 137-82, Madison Wisconsin: PrehistoryPress.

Kashyap, P.C., 1984, Surviving HaÃappan Civilisation, New Delhi: Shakti Malik.




Kramers, J.H., 1954, Analecta Orientalia: Posthumous Writings and Selected Minor Works, Leiden:Brill.

Keith, A.B. and A.A. Macdonell, 1912, Vedic Index of Names and Subjects, 2 vols., London: JohnMurray.

Kennedy, K.A.R., 2000, God-Apes and Fossil Men, Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Kenoyer, J.M., 2005, “Culture Change During the Late HaÃappan Period at Harappa”, in The

Indo-Aryan Controversy Evidence and Inference in Indian History, ed. E.F. Bryant and L.L. Patton,pp. 21-49, London and New York: Routledge.

———, 2006, “Cultures and Societies of the Indus Tradition”, in Historical Roots in the Making of

the Aryan, ed. R. Thapar, pp. 21-49, New Delhi: National Book Trust.

Kohl, P., 2009, The Making of Bronze Age Eurasia , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Lal, B.B., 1998a, India 1947-1997: New Light on the Indus Civilization , New Delhi: Aryan Books

International.———, 1998b, “†gvedic Aryans: The Debate Must Go On”, East and West, 48: 439-48.

———, 2002, The Sarasvati Flows On: The Continuity of Indian Culture, New Delhi: Aryan BooksInternational.

———, 2008, RÀma: His Historicity, Mandir and Setu — Evidence of Literature, Archaeology and Other

Sciences, New Delhi: Aryan Books International.

Lal, B.B., J.P. Joshi, B.K. Thapar and M. Bala, 2003, Excavations at Kalibangan: The Early HaÃappans

(1960-1969), New Delhi: Archaeological Survey of India.

Liversage, D., 1991, South Asian Radiocarbon Datings; Calibration and Computer Graphics,Indo-Pacific Prehistory Association Bulletin, 10: 198-205.

McIntosh, J., 2008, The Ancient Indus Valley: New Perspectives , Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO.Pal, J.N., 2008, “The Early Farming Culture of the Middle Ganga Plain with Special Reference tothe Excavations at Jhusi and Hetapatti”, PrÀgdhÀrÀ, 18: 263-81.

Pargiter, F.E., 1913, The PurÀõa Text of the Dynasties of the Kali Age, London: Humphrey Milford,Oxford University Press.

———, 1922, Ancient Indian Historical Tradition, London: Humphrey Milford, Oxford UniversityPress.

Parpola, A. and P. Koskikallio (eds.), 1994, South Asian Archaeology 1993, Helsinki: SuomalainenTiedeakatemia.

Possehl, G.L., 1999, Indus Age: The Beginnings, New Delhi and Calcutta: Oxford and IBH PublishingCo.

———, 2002, The Indus Civilization: A Contemporary Perspective , Walnut Creek: Alta Mira Press.

Potts, D.T., 1999, The Archaeology of Elam: Formation and Transformation of an Ancient Iranian State ,Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Pusalker, A.D., 1950, Presidential Address, Proceedings of the Indian History Congress, 13: 19-29.

———, 1968, “†gveda and Harappa Culture”, in Mélanges d’indianisme à la mémoire de Louis Renou,

pp. 581-94, Paris: E. de Boccard.




Rao, S.R. (ed.), 1988, Marine Archaeology of Indian Ocean Countries: Proceedings of the First Indian

Conference of Marine Archaeology of Indian Ocean Countries, Oct. 1987 , Goa: National Institute of

Oceanography.———, 1991, Dawn and Devolution of the Indus Civilization , New Delhi: Aditya Prakashan.

Ratnagar, S., 1991, Enquiries into the Political Organization of HaÃappan Society , Pune: RavishPublishers.

———, 2001, Understanding Harappa: Civilization in the Greater Indus Valley , New Delhi: Tulika.

Reich, D. et al., 2009, “Reconstructing Indian Population History”, Nature, 461: 489-94.

Sengupta, S. et al., 2006, “Polarity and Temporality of High-resolution y-Chromosome Distributionsin India Identify both Indigenous and Exogenous Expansions and Reveal Minor GeneticInfluence of Central Asian Pastoralists”, American Journal of Human Genetics, 78(2): 202-21.

Shaffer, J.G. and A. Lichtenstein, 1995, “The Concepts of Cultural Tradition” and “Palaeoethnicity”

in “South Asian Archaeology”, in The Indo-Aryans of Ancient South Asia: Language, MaterialCulture and Ethnicity, ed. G. Erdosy, pp. 126-54, Berlin and New York: De Gruyter.

Shashi, S.S. (ed.), 1998, Encyclopaedia Indica: RÀmÀyaõa, vol. 21, New Delhi: Anmol Publications.

Singh, B., 1995, The Vedic Harappans, New Delhi: Aditya Prakashan.

Singh, G.P., 2004, Early Indian Historical Tradition and Archaeology: PurÀõic Kingdoms and Dynasties

with Genealogies, Relative Chronology and Date of MahÀbhÀrata War , New Delhi: D.K. Printworld.

Singh, U. (ed.), 2006, Delhi: Ancient History, New Delhi: Social Science Press.

Talageri, S.G., 1993, The Aryan Invasion Theory: A Reappraisal, New Delhi: Aditya Prakashan.

———, 2000, The †gveda: A Historical Analysis, New Delhi: Aditya Prakashan.

———, 2008, The †gveda and the Avesta: The Final Evidence , New Delhi: Aditya Prakashan.

Tewari, R. et al., 2006, “Second Preliminary Report of the Excavations at Lahuradewa DistrictSant Kabir Nagar, U.P.: 2002-06”, PrÀgdhÀrÀ, 16: 35-68.

———, 2008, Early Farming at Lahuradewa”, PrÀgdhÀrÀ, 18: 347-73.

Tripathi, D.N. (ed.), 2005, A Discourse on Indo European Languages and Culture, New Delhi: ManakPublications.

Vidale, M., 2010, A Oriente di Sumer : Archeologia dei primi stati euroasiatici 4000-2000 a.C., Roma:Carocci.

The Chronology of Puranic Kings and Rgvedic Rsis

Documents

Transcript of The Chronology of Puranic Kings and Rgvedic Rsis