[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
THE MYTH OF THE ARYAN INVASION OF INDIA - David Frawley
-
To: alt-hindu@uunet.uu.net
-
Subject: THE MYTH OF THE ARYAN INVASION OF INDIA - David Frawley
-
From: nmahadev@lynx.dac.neu.edu (Nadimpalli Mahadev)
-
Date: 20 Jul 1995 04:46:51 GMT
-
From root@chaos.dac.neu.edu Thu Jul 20 00: 34:39 1995
-
Newsgroups: alt.hindu
-
Organization: Northeastern University, Boston, MA. 02115, USA
Jayant Mahajan (jmahajan@lynx.dac.neu.edu) 14 Jun 1994 writes:
THE MYTH OF THE ARYAN INVASION OF INDIA
By David Frawley.
One of the main ideas used to interpret - and generally devalue - the
ancient history of India is the theory of the Aryan invasion.
According to this account, India was invaded and conquered by nomadic
light-skinned Indo-European tribes from Central Asia around 1500-100
BC, who overthrew an earlier and more advanced dark-skinned Dravidian
civilization from which they took most of what later became Hindu
culture. This so-called pre-Aryan civilization is said to be evidenced
by the large urban ruins of what has been called the "Indus valley
culture" (as most of its initial sites were on the Indus river). The
war between the powers of light and darkness, a prevalent idea in
ancient Aryan Vedic scriptures, was thus interpreted to refer to this
war between light and dark- skinned peoples. The Aryan invasion theory
thus turned the "Vedas", the original scriptures of ancient India and
the Indo-Aryans, into little more than primitive poems of uncivilized
plunderers.
This idea - totally foreign to the history of India, whether north or
south - has become almost an unquestioned truth in the interpretation
of ancient history Today, after nearly all the reasons for its
supposed validity have been refuted, even major Western scholars are
at last beginning to call it in question.
In this article we will summarize the main points that have arisen.
This is a complex subject that I have dealt with in depth in my book
"Gods, Sages and Kings: Vedic Secrets of Ancient Civilization", for
those interested in further examination of the subject.
The Indus valley culture was pronounced pre-Aryans for several reasons
that were largely part of the cultural milieu of nineteenth century
European thinking As scholars following Max Mullar had decided that
the Aryans came into India around 1500 BC, since the Indus valley
culture was earlier than this, they concluded that it had to be
pre-Aryan. Yet the rationale behind the late date for the Vedic
culture given by Muller was totally speculative. Max Muller, like many
of the Christian scholars of his era, believed in Biblical chronology.
This placed the beginning of the world at 400 BC and the flood around
2500 BC. Assuming to those two dates, it became difficult to get the
Aryans in India before 1500 BC.
Muller therefore assumed that the five layers of the four 'Vedas' &
'Upanishads' were each composed in 200 year periods before the Buddha
at 500 BC. However, there are more changes of language in Vedic
Sanskrit itself than there are in classical Sanskrit since Panini,
also regarded as a figure of around 500 BC, or a period of 2500 years.
Hence it is clear that each of these periods could have existed for
any number of centuries and that the 200 year figure is totally
arbitrary and is likely too short a figure.
It was assumed by these scholars - many of whom were also Christian
missionaries unsympathetic to the 'Vedas' - that the Vedic culture was
that of primitive nomads from Central Asia. Hence they could not have
founded any urban culture like that of the Indus valley. The only
basis for this was a rather questionable interpretation of the 'Rig
Veda' that they made, ignoring the sophisticated nature of the culture
presented within it.
Meanwhile, it was also pointed out that in the middle of the second
millennium BC, a number of Indo-European invasions apparently occured
in the Middle East, wherein Indo-European peoples - the Hittites,
Mittani and Kassites - conquered and ruled Mesopotamia for some
centuries. An Aryan invasion of India would have been another version
of this same movement of Indo-European peoples. On top of this,
excavators of the Indus valley culture, like Wheeler, thought they
found evidence of destruction of the culture by an outside invasion
confirming this.
The Vedic culture was thus said to be that of primitive nomads who
came out of Central Asia with their horse-drawn chariots and iron
weapons and overthrew the cities of the more advanced Indus valley
culture, with their superior battle tactics. It was pointed out that
no horses, chariots or iron was discovered in Indus valley sites.
This was how the Aryan invasion theory formed and has remained since
then. Though little has been discovered that confirms this theory,
there has been much hesitancy to question it, much less to give it up.
Further excavations discovered horses not only in Indus Valley sites
but also in pre-Indus sites. The use of the horse has thus been proven
for the whole range of ancient Indian history. Evidence of the wheel,
and an Indus seal showing a spoked wheel as used in chariots, has also
been found, suggesting the usage of chariots.
Moreover, the whole idea of nomads with chariots has been challenged.
Chariots are not the vehicles of nomads. Their usage occured only in
ancient urban cultures with much flat land, of which the river plain
of north India was the most suitable. Chariots are totally unsuitable
for crossing mountains and deserts, as the so-called Aryan invasion
required.
That the Vedic culture used iron - & must hence date later than the
introduction of iron around 1500 BC - revolves around the meaning of
the Vedic term "ayas", interpreted as iron. 'Ayas' in other Indo -
European languages like Latin or German usually means copper, bronze
or ore generally, not specially iron. There is no reason to insist
that in such earlier Vedic times, 'ayas' meant iron, particularly
since other metals are not mentioned in the 'Rig Veda' (except gold
that is much more commonly referred to than ayas). Moreover, the
'Atharva Veda' and 'Yajur Veda' speak of different colors of
'ayas'(such as red & black), showing that it was a generic term. Hence
it is clear that 'ayas' generally meant metal and not specifically
iron.
Moreover, the enemies of the Vedic people in the 'Rig Veda' also use
ayas, even for making their cities, as do the Vedic people themselves.
Hence there is nothing in Vedic literture to show that either the
Vedic culture was an iron- based culture or that there enemies were
not.
The 'Rig Veda' describes its Gods as 'destroyers of cities'. This was
used also to regard the Vedic as a primitive non-urban culture that
destroys cities and urban civilization. However, there are also many
verses in the 'Rig Veda' that speak of the Aryans as having having
cities of their own and being protected by cities upto a hundred in
number. Aryan Gods like Indra, Agni, Saraswati and the Adityas are
praised as being like a city. Many ancient kings, including those of
Egypt and Mesopotamia, had titles like destroyer or conquerer of
cities. This does not turn them into nomads. Destruction of cities
also happens in modern wars; this does not make those who do this
nomads. Hence the idea of Vedic culture as destroying but not building
the cities is based upon ignoring what the Vedas actually say about
their own cities.
Further excavation revealed that the Indus Valley culture was not
destroyed by outside invasion, but according to internal causes and,
most likely, floods. Most recently a new set of cities has been found
in India (like the Dwaraka and Bet Dwaraka sites by S.R. Rao and the
National Institute of Oceanography in India) which are intermidiate
between those of the Indus culture and later ancient India as visited
by the Greeks. This may eliminate the so-called dark age following the
presumed Aryan invasion and shows a continuous urban occupation in
India back to the beginning of the Indus culture.
The interpretation of the religion of the Indus Valley culture -made
incidentlly by scholars such as Wheeler who were not religious
scholars much less students of Hinduism - was that its religion was
different than the Vedic and more likely the later Shaivite religion.
However, further excavations - both in Indus Valley site in Gujarat,
like Lothal, and those in Rajsthan, like Kalibangan - show large
number of fire altars like those used in the Vedic religion, along
with bones of oxen, potsherds, shell jewelry and other items used in
the rituals described in the 'Vedic Brahmanas'. Hence the Indus Valley
culture evidences many Vedic practices that can not be merely
coincidental. That some of its practices appeared non-Vedic to its
excavators may also be attributed to their misunderstanding or lack of
knowledge of Vedic and Hindu culture generally, wherein Vedism and
Shaivism are the same basic tradition.
We must remember that ruins do not necessarily have one
interpretation. Nor does the ability to discover ruins necessarily
gives the ability to interpret them correctly.
The Vedic people were thought to have been a fair-skinned race like
the Europeans owing to the Vedic idea of a war between light and
darkness, and the Vedic people being presented as children of light or
children of the sun. Yet this idea of a war between light and darkness
exists in most ancient cultures, including the Persian and the
Egyptian. Why don't we interpret their scriptures as a war between
light and dark-skinned people? It is purely a poetic metaphor, not a
cultural statement. Moreover, no real traces of such a race are found
in India.
The Vedic people were thought to have been a fair-skinned race like
the Europeans owing to the Vedic idea of a war between light and
darkness, and the Vedic people being presented as children of light or
children of the sun. Yet this idea of a war between light and darkness
exists in most ancient cultures, including the Persian and the
Egyptian. Why don't we interpret their scriptures as a war between
light and dark-skinned people? It is purely a poetic metaphor, not a
cultural statement. Moreover, no real traces of such a race are found
in India.
Anthropologists have observed that the present population of Gujarat
is composed of more or less the same ethnic groups as are noticed at
Lothal in 2000 BC. Similarly, the present population of the Punjab is
said to be ethnically the same as the population of Harappa and Rupar
4000 years ago. Linguistically the present day population of Gujrat
and Punjab belongs to the Indo-Aryan language speaking group. The only
inference that can be drawn from the anthropological and linguistic
evidences adduced above is that the Harappan population in the Indus
Valley and Gujrat in 2000 BC was composed of two or more groups, the
more dominent among them having very close ethnic affinities with the
present day Indo-Aryan speaking population of India.
In other words there is no racial evidence of any such Indo-Aryan
invasion of India but only of a continuity of the same group of people
who traditionally considered themselves to be Aryans.
There are many points in fact that prove the Vedic nature of the Indus
Valley culture. Further excavation has shown that the great majority
of the sites of the Indus Valley culture were east, not west of Indus.
In fact, the largest concentration of sites appears in an area of
Punjab and Rajsthan near the dry banks of ancient Saraswati and
Drishadvati rivers. The Vedic culture was said to have been founded by
the sage Manu between the banks of Saraswati and Drishadvati rivers.
The Saraswati is lauded as the main river (naditama) in the 'Rig Veda'
& is the most frequently mentioned in the text. It is said to be a
great flood and to be wide, even endless in size. Saraswati is said to
be "pure in course from the mountains to the sea". Hence the Vedic
people were well acquainted with this river and regarded it as their
immemorial homeland.
The Saraswati, as modern land studies now reveal, was indeed one of
the largest, if not the largest river in India. In early ancient and
pre-historic times, it once drained the Sutlej, Yamuna and the Ganges,
whose courses were much different than they are today. However, the
Saraswati river went dry at the end of the Indus Valley culture and
before the so-called Aryan invasion or before 1500 BC. In fact this
may have caused the ending of the Indus culture. How could the Vedic
Aryans know of this river and establish their culture on its banks if
it dried up before they arrived? Indeed the Saraswati as described in
the 'Rig Veda' appears to more accurately show it as it was prior to
the Indus Valley culture as in the Indus era it was already in
decline.
Vedic and late Vedic texts also contain interesting astronomical lore.
The Vedic calender was based upon astronomical sightings of the
equinoxes and solstices. Such texts as 'Vedanga Jyotish' speak of a
time when the vernal equinox was in the middle of the Nakshtra Aslesha
(or about 23 degrees 20 minutes Cancer). This gives a date of 1300 BC.
The 'Yajur Veda' and 'Atharva Veda' speak of the vernal equinox in the
Krittikas (Pleiades; early Taurus) and the summer solstice (ayana) in
Magha (early Leo). This gives a date about 2400 BC. Yet earlier eras
are mentioned but these two have numerous references to substantiate
them. They prove that the Vedic culture existed at these periods and
already had a sophisticated system of astronomy. Such references were
merely ignored or pronounced unintelligible by Western scholars
because they yielded too early a date for the 'Vedas' than what they
presumed, not because such references did not exist.
Vedic texts like 'Shatapatha Brahmana' and 'Aitereya Brahmana' that
mention these astronomical references list a group of 11 Vedic Kings,
including a number of figures of the 'Rig Veda', said to have
conquered the region of India from 'sea to sea'. Lands of the Aryans
are mentioned in them from Gandhara (Afganistan) in the west to Videha
(Nepal) in the east, and south to Vidarbha (Maharashtra). Hence the
Vedic people were in these regions by the Krittika equinox or before
2400 BC. These passages were also ignored by Western scholars and it
was said by them that the 'Vedas' had no evidence of large empires in
India in Vedic times. Hence a pattern of ignoring literary evidence or
misinterpreting them to suit the Aryan invasion idea became prevalent,
even to the point of changing the meaning of Vedic words to suit this
theory.
According to this theory, the Vedic people were nomads in the Punjab,
comming down from Central Asia. However, the 'Rig Veda' itself has
nearly 100 references to ocean (samudra), as well as dozens of
references to ships, and to rivers flowing in to the sea. Vedic
ancestors like Manu, Turvasha, Yadu and Bhujyu are flood figures,
saved from across the sea. The Vedic God of the sea, Varuna, is the
father of many Vedic seers and seer families like Vasishta, Agastya
and the Bhrigu seers. To preserve the Aryan invasion idea it was
assumed that the Vedic (and later sanskrit) term for ocean, samudra,
originally did not mean the ocean but any large body of water,
especially the Indus river in Punjab. Here the clear meaning of a term
in 'Rig Veda' and later times - verified by rivers like Saraswati
mentioned by name as flowing into the sea - was altered to make the
Aryan invasion theory fit. Yet if we look at the index to translation
of the 'Rig Veda' by Griffith for example, who held to this idea that
samudra didn't really mean the ocean, we find over 70 references to
ocean or sea. If samudra does noe mean ocean why was it traslated as
such? It is therefore without basis to locate Vedic kings in Central
Asia far from any ocean or from the massive Saraswati river, which
form the background of their land and the symbolism of their hymns.
One of the latest archeological ideas is that the Vedic culture is
evidenced by Painted Grey Ware pottery in north India, which apears to
date around 1000 BC and comes from the same region between the Ganges
and Yamuna as later Vedic culture is related to. It is thought to be
an inferior grade of pottery and to be associated with the use of iron
that the 'Vedas' are thought to mention. However it is associated with
a pig and rice culture, not the cow and barley culture of the 'Vedas'.
Moreover it is now found to be an organic development of indegenous
pottery, not an introduction of invaders.
Painted Grey Ware culture represents an indigenous cultural
development and does not reflect any cultural intrusion from the West
i.e. an Indo-Aryan invasion. Therefore, there is no archeological
evidence corroborating the fact of an Indo-Aryan invasion.
In addition, the Aryans in the Middle East, most notably the Hittites,
have now been found to have been in that region atleast as early as
2200 BC, wherein they are already mentioned. Hence the idea of an
Aryan invasion into the Middle East has been pushed back some
centuries, though the evidence so far is that the people of the moun-
tain regions of the Middle East were Indo-Europeans as far as recorded
history can prove.
The Aryan Kassites of the ancient Middle East worshipped Vedic Gods
like Surya and the Maruts, as well as one named Himalaya. The Aryan
Hittites and Mittani signed a treaty with the name of the Vedic Gods
Indra, Mitra, Varuna and Nasatyas around 1400 BC. The Hittites have a
treatise on chariot racing written in almost pure Sanskrit. The Indo -
Europeans of the ancient Middle East thus spoke Indo-Aryan, not
Indo-Iranian languages and thereby show a Vedic culture in that region
of the world as well.
The Indus Valley culture had a form of writing, as evidenced by
numerous seals found in the ruins. It was also assumed to be non-Vedic
and probably Dravidian, though this was never proved. Now it has been
shown that the majority of the late Indus signs are identical with
those of later Hindu Brahmi and that there is an organic development
between the two scripts. Prevalent models now suggest an Indo-European
base for that language.
It was also assumed that the Indus Valley culture derived its
civilization from the Middle East, probably Sumeria, as antecedents
for it were not found in India. Recent French excavations at Mehrgarh
have shown that all the antecedents of the Indus Valley culture can be
found within the subcontinent and going back before 6000 BC.
In short, some Western scholars are beginning to reject the Aryan
invasion or any outside origin for Hindu civilization.
Current archeological data do not support the existence of an Indo-
Aryan or European invasion into South Asia at any time in the pre- or
protohistoric periods. Instead, it is possible to document
archeologically a series of cultural changes reflecting indigenous
cultural development from prehistoric to historic periods. The early
Vedic literature describes not a human invasion into the area, but a
fundamental restructuring of indigenous society. The Indo-Aryan
invasion as an academic concept in 18th and 19th century Europe
reflected the cultural milieu of the period. Linguistic data were used
to validate the concept that in turn was used to interpret
archeological and anthropological data.
In other words, Vedic literature was interpreted on the assumption
that there was an Aryan invasion. Then archeological evidence was
interpreted by the same assumption. And both interpretations were then
used to justify each other. It is nothing but a tautology, an exercise
in circular thinking that only proves that if assuming something is
true, it is found to be true!
Another modern Western scholar, Colin Renfrew, places the Indo-
Europeans in Greece as early as 6000 BC. He also suggests such a
possible early date for their entry into India.
As far as I can see there is nothing in the Hymns of the 'Rig Veda'
which demonstrates that the Vedic-speaking population was intrusive to
the area: this comes rather from a historical assumption of the
'comming of the Indo-Europeans.
When Wheeler speaks of 'the Aryan invasion of the land of the 7
rivers, the Punjab', he has no warrenty at all, so far as I can see.
If one checks the dozen references in the 'Rig Veda' to the 7 rivers,
there is nothing in them that to me implies invasion: the land of the
7 rivers is the land of the 'Rig Veda', the scene of action. Nor is it
implied that the inhabitants of the walled cities (including the
Dasyus) were any more aboriginal than the Aryans themselves.
Despite Wheeler's comments, it is difficult to see what is
particularly non-Aryan about the Indus Valley civilization. Hence
Renfrew suggests that the Indus Valley civilization was in fact
Indo-Aryan even prior to the Indus Valley era:
This hypothesis that early Indo-European languages were spoken in
North India with Pakistan and on the Iranian plateau at the 6th
millennium BC has the merit of harmonizing symmetrically with the
theory for the origin of the Indo- European languages in Europe. It
also emphasizes the continuity in the Indus Valley and adjacent areas
from the early neolithic through to the floruit of the Indus Valley
civilization.
This is not to say that such scholars appreciate or understand the
'Vedas' - their work leaves much to be desired in this respect - but
that it is clear that the whole edifice built around the Aryan
invasion is beginning to tumble on all sides. In addition, it does not
mean that the 'Rig Veda' dates from the Indus Valley era. The Indus
Valley culture resembles that of the 'Yajur Veda' and the reflect the
pre-Indus period in India, when the Saraswati river was more
prominent.
The acceptance of such views would create a revolution in our view of
history as shattering as that in science caused by Einstein's theory
of relativity. It would make ancient India perhaps the oldest, largest
and most central of ancient cultures. It would mean that the Vedic
literary record - already the largest and oldest of the ancient world
even at a 1500 BC date - would be the record of teachings some
centuries or thousands of years before that. It would mean that the
'Vedas' are our most authentic record of the ancient world. It would
also tend to validate the Vedic view that the Indo-Europeans and other
Aryan peoples were migrants from India, not that the Indo-Aryans were
invaders into India. Moreover, it would affirm the Hindu tradition
that the Dravidians were early offshoots of the Vedic people through
the seer Agastya, and not unaryan peoples.
In closing, it is important to examine the social and political
implications of the Aryan invasion idea:
First, it served to divide India into a northern Aryan and southern
Dravidian culture which were made hostile to each other. This kept the
Hindus divided and is still a source of social tension.
Second, it gave the British an excuse in their conquest of India. They
could claim to be doing only what the Aryan ancestors of the Hindus
had previously done millennia ago.
Third, it served to make Vedic culture later than and possibly derived
from Middle Eastern cultures. With the proximity and relationship of
the latter with the Bible and Christianity, this kept the Hindu
religion as a sidelight to the development of religion and
civilization to the West.
Fourth, it allowed the sciences of India to be given a Greek basis, as
any Vedic basis was largely disqualified by the primitive nature of
the Vedic culture.
This discredited not only the 'Vedas' but the genealogies of the
'Puranas' and their long list of the kings before the Buddha or
Krishna were left without any historical basis. The 'Mahabharata',
instead of a civil war in which all the main kings of India
participated as it is described, became a local skirmish among petty
princes that was later exaggerated by poets. In short, it discredited
the most of the Hindu tradition and almost all its ancient literature.
It turned its scriptures and sages into fantacies and exaggerations.
This served a social, political and economical purpose of domination,
proving the superiority of Western culture and religion. It made the
Hindus feel that their culture was not the great thing that their
sages and ancestors had said it was. It made Hindus feel ashamed of
their culture - that its basis was neither historical nor scientific.
It made them feel that the main line of civilization was developed
first in the Middle East and then in Europe and that the culture of
India was peripheral and secondary to the real development of world
culture.
Such a view is not good scholarship or archeology but merely cultural
imperialism. The Western Vedic scholars did in the intellectual
spehere what the British army did in the political realm - discredit,
divide and conquer the Hindus.
In short, the compelling reasons for the Aryan invasion theory were
neither literary nor archeological but political and religious - that
is to say, not scholarship but prejudice. Such prejudice may not have
been intentional but deep-seated political and religious views easily
cloud and blur our thinking.
It is unfortunate that this this approach has not been questioned
more, particularly by Hindus. Even though Indian Vedic scholars like
Dayananda saraswati, Bal Gangadhar Tilak and Arobindo rejected it,
most Hindus today passively accept it. They allow Western, generally
Christian, scholars to interpret their history for them and quite
naturally Hinduism is kept in a reduced role. Many Hindus still
accept, read or even honor the translations of the 'Vedas' done by
such Christian missionary scholars as Max Muller, Griffith, Monier-
Williams and H. H. Wilson. Would modern Christians accept an
interpretation of the Bible or Biblical history done by Hindus aimed
at converting them to Hinduism? Universities in India also use the
Western history books and Western Vedic translations that propound
such views that denigrate their own culture and country.
The modern Western academic world is sensitive to critisms of cultural
and social biases. For scholars to take a stand against this biased
interpretation of the 'Vedas' would indeed cause a reexamination of
many of these historical ideas that can not stand objective scrutiny.
But if Hindu scholars are silent or passively accept the
misinterpretation of their own culture, it will undoubtly continue,
but they will have no one to blame but themselves. It is not an issue
to be taken lightly, because how a culture is defined historically
creates the perspective from which it is viewed in the modern social
and intellectual context. Tolerance is not in allowing a false view of
one's own culture and religion to be propagated without question. That
is merely self-betrayal.
References:
1. "Atherva Veda" IX.5.4.
2. "Rig Veda" II.20.8 & IV.27.1.
3. "Rig Veda" VII.3.7; VII.15.14; VI.48.8; I.166.8; I.189.2; VII.95.1.
4. S.R. Rao, "Lothal and the Indus Valley Civilization", Asia Publishing House,
Bombay, India, 1973, p. 37, 140 & 141.
5. Ibid, p. 158.
6. "Manu Samhita" II.17-18.
7. Note "Rig Veda" II.41.16; VI.61.8-13; I.3.12.
8. "Rig Veda" VII.95.2.
9. Studies from the post-graduate Research Institute of Deccan College, Pune,
and the Central Arid Zone Research Institute (CAZRI), Jodhapur. Confirmed by
use of MSS (multi-spectral scanner) and Landsat Satellite photography. Note
MLBD Newsletter (Delhi, India: Motilal Banarasidass), Nov. 1989. Also Sriram
Sathe, "Bharatiya Historiography", Itihasa Sankalana Samiti, Hyderabad, Indi
a,
1989, pp. 11-13.
10. "Vedanga Jyotisha of Lagadha", Indian National Science Academy, Delhi,
India, 1985, pp 12-13.
11. "Aitareya Brahmana", VIII.21-23; "Shatapat Brahmana", XIII.5.4.
12. R. Griffith, "The Hymns of the Rig Veda", Motilal Banarasidas, Delhi, 1976.
13. J. Shaffer, "The Indo-Aryan invasions: Cultural Myth and Archeological
Reality", from J. Lukas(Ed), 'The people of South Asia', New York, 1984, p.
85.
14. T. Burrow, "The Proto-Indoaryans", Journal of Royal Asiatic Society, No. 2,
1973, pp. 123-140.
15. G. R. Hunter, "The Script of Harappa and Mohenjodaro and its connection
with other scripts", Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co., London, 1934.
J.E. Mitchiner, "Studies in the Indus Valley Inscriptions", Oxford & IBH, De
lhi,
India, 1978.
Also the work of Subhash Kak as in "A Frequency Analysis of the Indus Script
",
Cryptologia, July 1988, Vol XII, No 3; "Indus Writing", The Mankind Quarterl
y,
Vol 30, No 1 & 2, Fall/Winter 1989; and "On the Decipherment of the Indus
Script - A Preliminary Study of its connection with Brahmi", Indian Journal
of
History of Science, 22(1):51-62 (1987). Kak may be close to deciphering the
Indus Valley script into a Sanskrit like or Vedic language.
16. J.F. Jarrige and R.H. Meadow, "The Antecedents of Civilization in the Indus
Valley", Scientific American, August 1980.
17. C. Renfrew, "Archeology and Language", Cambridge University Press, New
York, 1987.
-----------------------------------------------------------
