THE HORSE AND THE ARYAN DEBATE

THE HORSE

AND THE ARYAN DEBATE

The presence or absence of the horse in the Indus-Sarasvati civilization has beena bone of contention for decades, especially in the context of the Aryan invasiontheory. The argument is familiar: the Rig-Veda uses the wordashva over 200times,ergo the Vedic society must have been full of horses,ergo the Harappancivilization, from which the noble animal is conspicuously absent, must be pre-Vedic and non-Aryan. The horse must therefore have been brought into Indiaaround 1500 BCE by the invading Aryans, who used its speed to crushingadvantage in order to subdue the native, ox-driven populations. This line ofreasoning is regarded as so evident and foolproof that it is taken to be the finalword on the issue; as a result, we find it confidently repeated in reference booksand history textbooks dealing with India’s prehistory.

However, on closer view, there are serious flaws at every step of theargument — and indeed several concealed steps. I will first examine thephysical evidence of the horse from various Harappan sites, both in terms ofskeletal remains and depictions, before turning to problems of methodologythat have compounded the confusion, in particular the double-edged use ofnegative evidence, and the persisting colonial misreadings of the Rig-Veda.

Physical remains of the horse

in Indus-Sarasvati sites

Our first surprise is that contrary to conventional assertions, quite a fewarchaeologists have reported horse remains from India’s prehistoric sites. A.Ghosh’s respected and authoritative Encyclopaedia of Indian Archaeologymentions without fuss: In India the ... true horse is reported from the Neolithic levels at Kodekal[dist. Gulbarga of Karnataka] and Hallur [dist. Raichur of Karnataka] andthe late Harappa levels at Mohenjo-daro (Sewell and Guha, 1931) andRopar and at Harappa, Lothal and numerous other sites. … Recently bonesof Equus caballus have also been reported from the proto-Harappa site ofMalvan in Gujarat.Mortimer Wheeler, a flamboyant proponent of the Aryan invasion theoryif ever there was one, admitted long ago that “it is likely enough that camel,horse and ass were in fact a familiar feature of the Indus caravan.”. The well-known archaeologist B. B. Lal refers to a number of horse teeth and bonesreported from Kalibangan, Ropar, Malvan and Lothal.. Another seniorarchaeologist, S. P. Gupta, adds further details on those finds, including earlyones. In the case of Lothal, the archaeozoologist Bhola Nath certified theidentification of a tooth;5 he also made similar observations regarding bonesfrom Mohenjo-daro and Harappa.

In India the ... true horse is reported from the Neolithic levels at Kodekal[dist. Gulbarga of Karnataka] and Hallur [dist. Raichur of Karnataka] andthe late Harappa levels at Mohenjo-daro (Sewell and Guha, 1931) andRopar and at Harappa, Lothal and numerous other sites. … Recently bonesof Equus caballus have also been reported from the proto-Harappa site ofMalvan in Gujarat.

Mortimer Wheeler, a flamboyant proponent of the Aryan invasion theoryif ever there was one, admitted long ago that “it is likely enough that camel,horse and ass were in fact a familiar feature of the Indus caravan.”The well-known archaeologist B. B. Lal refers to a number of horse teeth and bonesreported from Kalibangan, Ropar, Malvan and Lothal. Another seniorarchaeologist, S. P. Gupta, adds further details on those finds, including earlyones. In the case of Lothal, the archaeozoologist Bhola Nath certified theidentification of a tooth; he also made similar observations regarding bonesfrom Mohenjo-daro and Harappa.

A. K. Sharma’s well-known identification of horse remains at Surkotada (in Katchchh) was endorsed by the late Hungarian archaeozoologistSándor Bökönyi, an internationally respected authority in the field; in 1991,taking care to distinguish them from those of the local wild ass (khur), heconfirmed several of them to be “remnants of true horses,”and what is more,domesticated horses. In his 1993 report to the Director-General of theArchaeological Survey of India, Bökönyi made no bones about the whole issue .Through a thorough study of the equid remains of the prehistoricsettlement of Surkotada, Kutch, excavated under the direction of Dr. J. P.Joshi, I can state the following: The occurrence of true horse (Equus caballusL.) was evidenced by the enamel pattern of the upper and lower cheek andteeth and by the size and form of incisors and phalanges (toe bones). Sinceno wild horses lived in India in post-Pleistocene times, the domestic natureof the Surkotada horses is undoubtful. This is also supported by an inter-maxilla fragment whose incisor tooth shows clear signs of crib biting, a badhabit only existing among domestic horses which are not extensively usedfor war.

Quite in tune with the findings at Surkotada and Lothal, P. K. Thomas,P. P. Joglekar et al., experts from the Deccan College on faunal remains,reported horse bones from the nearby Harappan site of Shikarpur “in theMature Harappan period,” and from Kuntasi (at the boundary between Kutchand Saurashtra).

To the Neolithic sites mentioned by A. Ghosh, we must add Koldihwa (inthe Belan valley of Allahabad district), where G. R. Sharma et al. identifiedhorse fossils. Contemporary with the Harappan period, the culture of theChambal valley (in Madhya Pradesh) was explored by the respectedarchaeologist M. K. Dhavalikar, with layers dated between 2450 and 2000 BCE.His observations are remarkable:

The most interesting is the discovery of bones of horse from the Kayathalevels and a terracotta figurine of a mare. It is the domesticate species(Equus caballus), which takes back the antiquity of the steed in India to thelatter half of the third millennium BC. The presence of horse at Kayatha inall the chalcolithic levels assumes great significance in the light of thecontroversy about the horse.

Let us stress that just as at Surkotada, the horse at Kayatha was

domesticated.

In the face of so many reports from so many sites by so many experts, ablanket denial of the animal’s physical presence in pre-1500 BCE India passesone’s comprehension. Are we to believe thatall identifications of horse remainsby experts are wrong and misleading? Have scholars rejecting such evidencepersonally crosschecked even 10% of it? Have they, too, expressed similardoubts about the identification of other animal remains found in the same sitesand conditions?

Richard Meadow and Ajita Patel did challenge Sándor Bökönyi’s report tothe Archaeological Survey. Bökönyi however stuck to his views (although hepassed away before he could give his final response), and Meadow and Patelconcluded their long plea with the rather weak statement that “… in the endthat [Bökönyi’s identification of horse remains at Surkotada] may be a matter ofemphasis and opinion.” What makes their eagerness to convince Bökönyi tochange his mind suspect is that they never challenged Indian experts such asA. K. Sharma, P. K. Thomas or P. P. Joglekar; it was only when Bökönyiendorsed findings on the “Harappan horse” that they got alarmed. Since then,amusingly, their inconclusive paper has been quoted by several Marxist historians as the last word on the nonexistence of the horse in the Indus-Sarasvati civilization.Even more ironically, when invasionists attempt to tracethe introduction of the horse into Europe, they turn to the same Bökönyi!Hisexpertise was never in question in Europe, but is unacceptable in India. The old argument that so-called horse remains invariably belong to

species of wild ass such as the onager (Equus hemionus onager), the khur (Equus hemionus khur), or the plain ass (Equus asinus) is unacceptable, firstly because it is sweeping in nature and produces little or no evidence, secondly because inseveral cases, experts havesimultaneously reported remains of the wild ass fromthe very same sites, which implies some ability to distinguish between thosespecies.

Another frequent and sweeping objection is that the dates of the disputedhorse remains are not firmly established and might be much more recent. ButJagat Pati Joshi’s excavation report, for instance, makes it clear that,

At Surkotada from all the three periods quite a good number of bones ofhorse (Equus Caballus Linn) ... have been recovered. The parts recovered arevery distinctive bones: first, second and third phalanges and few vertebraefragments.

The first of Surkotada’s “three periods” coincides with the mature stage of theHarappan civilization,20 which rules out the possibility of the horse having beenintroduced by Aryans around 1500 BCE. Moreover, we have the case ofMahagara (near Allahabad), where horse bones were not only identified byG. R. Sharma et al., but “six sample absolute carbon 14 tests have given datesranging from 2265 B.C.E. to 1480 B.C.E.”21 The case of Hallur, mentioned by A.Ghosh above, is even more striking: the excavation (in the late 1960s) brought out horse remains that were dated between 1500 and 1300 BCE, in other words,about the time Aryans are pictured to have galloped down the Khyber pass,some 2,000 north of Hallur.22 Even at a fierce Aryan pace, the animal couldhardly have reached Karnataka by that time. When K. R. Alur, anarchaeozoologist as well as a veterinarian, published his report on the animalremains from the site, he received anxious queries, even protests: there had tobe some error regarding those horse bones. A fresh excavation was eventuallyundertaken some twenty years later — which brought to light more horsebones, and more consternation. Alur saw no reason to alter his original report,and wrote that his critics’ opinion “cannot either deny or alter the find of ascientific fact that the horse was present at Hallur before the (presumed) periodof Aryan invasion.”23 The claim that horse finds are undated is thereforedisingenuous.

Finally, S. P. Gupta offers a sensible reply to the further objection thathorse remains, if at all they are accepted, rarely account for more than 2% of thetotal animal remains at any site. Pointing out that the same holds true of thecamel and elephant (animals undeniably present in Harappan sites), he explainsthat this low proportion is “simply because these animals are not likely to havebeen as regularly eaten as cattle, sheep and goats as well as fish whose bonesare abundantly found at all Indus-Saraswati settlements.”24

All in all, the case for the horse’s physical presence in the Indus-Sarasvaticivilization is quite overwhelming, and is bound to be further strengthened byevidence yet to come out of thousands of unexplored sites. Archaeologist A. K.Sharma’s conclusion, in a paper that surveyed the “horse evidence” and hisown experiences in this regard, is worth quoting:

It is really strange that no notice was taken by archaeologists of these vitalfindings, and the oft-repeated theory that the true domesticated horse wasnot known to the Harappans continued to be harped upon, coolly ignoringthese findings to help our so-called veteran historians and archaeologists ofWheeler’s generation to formulate and propagate their theory of ‘Aryaninvasion of India on horse-back’....

Depictions of the horse and the spoked wheel

The Harappans certainly built much of their religious symbols around

animals, depicting many of them on their seals and tablets, in terracotta figurines, or as pottery motifs. While it is true that the horse does not appear onthe Harappan seals (except if we were to accept the conjecture by S. R. Rao26and a few other scholars that the composite animal represented on thousands ofseals as a unicorn actually has a horse’s head), it has been hastily claimed thatthe animal is never depicted at all.

A horse figurine did emerge at Mohenjo-daro ,which drew the

following comment from E. J. H. Mackay, one of the early excavators at the site:Perhaps the most interesting of the model animals is one that I personallytake to represent a horse. I do not think we need be particularly surprised ifit should be proved that the horse existed thus early at Mohenjo-daro

Wheeler himself accepted it as such.28 Another figurine was reported by StuartPiggot from Periano Ghundai, and several at Lothal, some of them with a fairlyclear evocation of the horse .The horse also appears on somepottery, for instance at pre-Harappan levels of Kunal (Haryana), among otheranimals, according to the excavator R. S. Bisht et al. Another figurine wasfound at Balu, with what looks like a saddle. Dhavalikar, quoted above,mentioned “a terracotta figurine of a mare” in the Chambal valley. Finally, thehorse is depicted in rock art (for instance at Bhimbetka or Morhana Pahar in theNarmada valley), but unfortunately, we have very few absolute dates for rockart in India.

It is not just the horse that invasionist scholars sought to erase from pre-1500 BC India: they also asserted that the spoked wheel came to India only withthe Aryans.32 “The first appearance of [the invading Aryans’] thundering chariots must have stricken the local population with a terror ...” writes MichaelWitzel in a grandiloquent echo of nineteenth-century racial theories.33 Thespoked wheel was thus seen as a crucial element in the speed game, comparedto the slow bullock-driven solid-wheeled Harappan cart — until it turned outthat Harappans did have spoked wheels, after all. Fig. 5 shows a few terracottawheels from Banawali and Rakhigarhi where the spokes are clearly visible inrelief or painted.34 More such wheels have been found at Kuntasi,35 Lothal, andBhirrana36 (in Haryana).

All this material illustrates the danger of “negative evidence”: it takes very

little to make it irrelevant.

Methodological issues

Raw evidence apart, the appearance of the horse in the Indiansubcontinent is, in reality, a complex issue, and by treating it crudely, theconventional theory suffers from serious methodological flaws. Let us brieflyhighlight a few of them.

1.Physical remains and depictions of the horse in India after 1500 BC

The invasionist school posits that the horse was introduced into India bythe “Aryans” around 1500 BC. One would therefore expect a marked increase inremains and depictions of the animal after that fateful event (or non-event). Yet— and this is one of the best kept secrets of Indian prehistory — nothing of thesort happens.

Looking only at the early historical layers, Taxila, Hastinapur orAtranjikhera (Uttar Pradesh) have indeed yielded bones of both the true horseand the domestic ass (strangely, the distinction between the two is no longerdisputed here!), but at other sites, such as Nashik, Nagda (Madhya Pradesh),Sarnath, Arikamedu (Tamil Nadu), Brahmagiri (Karnataka), Nagarjunakonda(Andhra Pradesh), no remains of either animal have turned up. There are alsosites like Jaugada (Orissa) or Maski (Karnataka) where the ass has been found,but not the horse.37 Finally, data available from sites that do come up with horseremains show no significant increase in the overall percentage of horse bones orteeth compared to Harappan sites such as Surkotada.

If, therefore, the low amount of evidence for the horse in the Indus-Sarasvati civilization is taken as proof that that civilization is pre-Vedic, wemust extend the same logic to the whole of pre-Mauryan India! It is clear thatthe horse was as rare or as common an animal before and after 1500 BC —“rare” is probably the correct statement for both.

As regards “post-invasion” depictions of the horse, they are also no morefrequent than in Harappan sites: barring a few figurines at Pirak, Hastinapuraand Atranjikhera, we find no striking representations of the animal, while wewould have expected the aggressive “Aryans” to pay rich tributes to theirinstrument of conquest, which, invasionists tell us, the Rig-Veda glorifies somuch. And yet, “the first deliberate and conscious attempt of shaping a horse indurable material like stone was witnessed in the art of the Mauryas in India,”writes historian T. K. Biswas.38 Another historian, Jayanti Rath, commenting onthe animals depicted on early Indian coins, remarks: “The animal world of thepunch-marked coins consists of elephant, bull, lion. dog, cat, deer, camel,rhinoceros, rabbit, frog, fish, turtle, ghariyal (fish eater crocodile), scorpion andsnake. Among the birds, peacock is very popular. The lion and horse symbolsappear to have acquired greater popularity in 3rd century B.C.”39

All in all, an eerie equine silence pervades pre-Mauryan India.

2.Physical remains and depictions of the horse outside India

It helps to take a look at a few regions outside India. In contemporaryBactria, for instance, the horse is well documented through depictions in gravegoods, yet no horse bones have been found. “This again underscores the pointthat lack of horse bones does not equal the absence of horse,” writes U.S.Indologist Edwin Bryant.40

In the case of the horse in America, where its spread is fairly well known,

Elizabeth Wing points out,

Once safely landed in the New World, they are reported to have prosperedalong with cattle in the grazing lands, free of competitors and predators.Horse remains, however, are seldom encountered in the archaeologicalsites. This may be a function of patterns of disposal, in which remains ofbeasts of burden which were not usually consumed would not beincorporated in food or butchering refuse remains.41

This fits with the picture we have formed of the horse in the Indus-Sarasvati civilization, and with S. P. Gupta’s similar observation on the non-consumption of horse meat. Clearly, invasionists have sought to put too muchweight on the rarity of horse remains in the third millennium.

3.Introduction of the horse = Aryan invasion?

Another non sequitur is that since the true horse was undoubtedlyintroduced into India at some time, and probably from Central Asia, it can onlyhave been introduced by invading Aryans.

As we have seen, the horse’s introduction must have taken place rightfrom Mature Harappan times, if not earlier; but let us assume for the sake ofargument that it only happened, as invasionist scholars assert without the leastevidence, in Late Harappan times. Even if it were so, how would it establishthat the horse came as a result of an invasion or a migration, when otherpossibilities are equally valid, or more so if we look at the evolution of theregion? Bryant, again, puts it crisply:

In the absence of irrefutable linguistic evidence, there is no reason to feelcompelled to believe that the introduction of the horse into thesubcontinent is indicative of the introduction of new peoples any morethan the introduction of any other innovatory items of material culture.So let us turn to one such “seer.” As early as 1912-14, a decade before thediscovery of the Indus-Sarasvati civilization, and thus long before our“Harappan horse” controversy, Sri Aurobindo in his study of the Rig-Veda andthe Upanishads found that

The wordashva must originally have implied strength or speed or both

before it came to be applied to a horse.More specifically,The cow and horse,go andashva, are constantly associated. Usha, theDawn, is described as gomati ashvavati; Dawn gives to the sacrificer horsesand cows. As applied to the physical dawngomati means accompanied byor bringing the rays of light and is an image of the dawn of illumination inthe human mind. Thereforeashvavati also cannot refer merely to thephysical steed; it must have a psychological significance as well. A study ofthe Vedic horse led me to the conclusion thatgo andashva represent thetwo companion ideas of Light and Energy, Consciousness and Force....60

For the ritualist the wordgo means simply a physical cow and nothing else,just as its companion word,ashva, means simply a physical horse.... Whenthe Rishi prays to the Dawn, gomad viravad dhehi ratnam uso ashvavat, theritualistic commentator sees in the invocation only an entreaty for“pleasant wealth to which are attached cows, men (or sons) and horses”. Ifon the other hand these words are symbolic, the sense will run, “Confirmin us a state of bliss full of light, of conquering energy and of force of vitality.”61

In other words, Sri Aurobindo rejects a mechanical equationashva = horse.The constant association of the Vedic horse with waters and the ocean, from theRig-Veda to the Puranic myth of the churning of the ocean, confirms that we arenot dealing here with an ordinary animal, as does the depiction of the Ashvinsas birds. Within this framework, theashvamedha sacrifice also deserves a newtreatment, which the Indologist Subhash Kak has recently outlined verycogently.62

Sri Aurobindo’s stand received indirect support from a wholly differentangle, that of the late anthropologist Edmund Leach, who warned against thepicture of a horse-rich Rig-Vedic society:The prominent place given to horses and chariots in the Rig Veda can tellus virtually nothing that might distinguish any real society for which theRig Veda might provide a partial cosmology. If anything, it suggests that inreal society (as opposed to its mythological counterpart), horses andchariots were a rarity, ownership of which was a mark of aristocratic orkingly distinction.63

Thus the place of the horse in the Rig-Veda needs to be reassessed from adecolonized standpoint, with a fresh look at the Vedic message and experience.If Sri Aurobindo and Leach are both right, then the wordashva refers onlyoccasionally to the actual animal, and its rarity is well reflected in the modestamount of physical remains and depictions. Indeed, even in today’s India,despite having been imported into India for many centuries, the horse remainsa relatively rare animal, invisible in most villages.

At this point, a valid objection could be raised: if the horse did exist in theIndus-Sarasvati civilization, and if one wishes to equate this civilization withVedic culture,64 the latter at least makes a symbolic use of the animal; why is thehorse therefore not depicted more often as a symbol in Harappan art, forinstance on the Indus seals? The answer I propose is simple: even if the Rig-Veda is contemporary with, or older than, the mature Indus-Sarasvaticivilization, we need not expect Harappan art to be a pure reflection of Vedicconcepts. The Veda represents the very specific quest of a few rishis, who areunlikely to have lived in the middle of the Harappan towns. Although Vedicconcepts and symbols are visible in Harappan culture, the latter is apopularculture; in the same way, the culture of today’s Indian village need not exactlyreflect Chennai’s music and dance sabhas. Between Kalibangan’s peasantsacrificing a goat for good rains and the rishi in quest of Tat ekam, That One,there is a substantial difference, even if they ultimately share the same worldview.

Only a more subtle approach to Harappan and Vedic cultures can throw

light on their apparent differences.

7. Isashva only Aryan?

One more unstated assumption of invasionists, who trust that theirreaders will not go and check the original text, is thatashva, in the Rig-Veda, is apurely Aryan animal. But is that what the text actually says? No doubt, most ofthe references placeashva, whatever the word means in the Rishis’ mind,squarely on the side of the Aryan gods and their human helpers. But it turnsout that there are a few revealing exceptions, when Dasyus and Panis alsopossessashvas.

For instance, Indra-Soma, by means of the truth (eva satyam), shatters thestable where Dasyus were holding “horses and cows” (ashvyam goh).65 Inanother hymn, Indra’s human helpers find the Pani’s “horses and cattle”: “TheAngirasas gained the whole enjoyment of the Pani, its herds of the cows and thehorses.”66

The most striking passage67 is from the famous dialogue between thedivine hound Sarama, Indra’s intransigent emissary, and the Panis, after shehas discovered their faraway den, where they jealously hoard their “treasures.”Sarama boldly declares Indra’s intention to seize these treasures, but the Panisare unimpressed and threaten to fight back; they taunt her: “O Sarama, see thetreasure deep in the mountain, it is full of cows and horses and treasures (gobhir

ashvebhir vasubhir nyrsah). The Panis guard it watchfully. You have come in vain

to a rich dwelling.” Every verse makes it clear that all these treasures, horsesincluded, belong to the Panis; at no point does Sarama complain that these arestolen goods: “I come in search of your great treasures,”68 she declares at first,and the Panis would not be insolent enough to taunt her with goods seizedfrom the Aryans; yet Sarama considers that Indra is fully entitled to them.

Now, if we followed the same colonial reading that invasionists impose onthe Vedas, we would be forced to acknowledge that the Dasyus and Panis alsohad horses of their own — which of course negates the whole idea of the animalhaving been introduced by the Aryans. It does look as if this Vedic landscape isgetting a little too crowded with horses, rather like a cheap Hollywood western.

To understand the Dasyus’ and Panis’ “horses,” we need to return to theVedic symbolism proposed by Sri Aurobindo: the demons do possess lights(cows) and energies or powers (horses), but, as misers, keep them forthemselves, neither for the gods nor for man. In the Vedic view, this is atransgression of the cosmic law. The duty of the rishi, helped by the gods, is toreconquer those “treasures” and put them to their true purpose; only then willthe cosmic order be reestablished. This is certainly more interesting than thetribal clashes of a barbaric and primitive age. In fact, the Rig-Veda itself makesits symbolism clear again and again, if only we can learn to read it with an openmind. In the last verse69 of the dialogue between Sarama and the Panis, for instance, the narrator concludes, “Go away, you Panis! Let out the cows which,hidden, infringe the Order!” This “order” isritam, the true cosmic law. It isinfringed not because the Panis hide a few cows and horses inside a cave, butbecause they misuse their lights and powers and do not offer them up as asacrifice. That is why Indra is entitled to their treasures — not because he is agreedy tribal leader out to expand his territory and wealth; and that is why hecan shatter the demons’ dens only “by means of the truth.”

Had it not been for the Aryan invasion theory, the Rig-Veda would havelong ago been the object of interpretations on a level with that accorded toGreek or Egyptian mythology, instead of being constricted to a literalist reading.

Conclusions

That the invasionist scholars should have skirted such important issues, asregards both findings and methodology, does little to inspire confidence.Clearly, the whole question of the Vedic and Harappan horse has been treatedsimplistically. To sum up:

1. Several species of Equus, including the true horse, existed in the Indus-Sarasvati civilization, probably in small numbers. Some of them may haveentered India over a much longer time span than is usually granted, in thecourse of the Indus-Sarasvati civilization’s interactions with neighbouringareas, but certainly not through any Aryan invasion or migration, which inany case has already been rejected by archaeological, anthropological,genetic, literary and cultural evidence.70

2.This process continued with a gradual but slight increase after the end ofthe mature phase of the Indus-Sarasvati civilization right up to earlyhistorical times. There was no epoch exhibiting a sudden, first-timeintroduction of the animal.

3.The Rig-Veda has been misread; it tells us strictly nothing about a sizeablehorse population, and rather suggests its rarity. The animal was importantin symbolic, not quantitative terms.

4. The Rig-Veda also tells us nothing about conquering Aryans hurtlingdown from Afghanistan in their horse-drawn “thundering” chariots andcrushing indigenous tribal populations; it is high time we abandoned once and for all those perverse fancies of nineteenth-century scholars, even if some of their peers hang on to such myths even today.

The hypothesis  put forward is testable: if correct, we should expectfurther excavations of Harappan sites to come up with more horse remains anddepictions, although nothing on the scale that the Aryan invasion theorywrongly expects of a Vedic society — and has failed to document in post-Harappan India.