06-10-2008, 09:57 AM
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>An ecological view of ancient India </b>
We need to look at the civilisation of India according to geographical and ecological imperatives that are far more certain than historical speculation conditioned by simplistic ideas of ethnicity, linguistics or migrations.
Ecology is beginning to define how we look at the world and how we look at ourselves. Each geographical region in the world constitutes a special ecosystem â an interrelated habitat for plants and animals shaped by climate and terrain. These ecological factors have a strong effect upon culture as well.
As part of nature ourselves, society arises out of an ecological basis that we cannot ignore. Most civilisations, both in their advance and decline, reflect how people manage the ecosystems in which they live along with their natural resources. Human culture derives largely from its first culture, which is agriculture, our ability to work the land. This depends largely on water, particularly fresh water that is found in rivers, and flat land that can be easily irrigated.
However, so far we have looked at history mainly in a non-ecological way, mainly trying to define it according to political, economic or racial concerns. Our account of ancient history â particularly that of India â has not given adequate regard to ecological factors. It has put too much weight on migration, as if culture came from the outside, rather than on the characteristics and necessities of the ecosystems in which people live and must rely upon for developing a sustainable way of life.
The Aryan invasion theory is such a product of the pre-ecological age of historical theory that emphasised the movements of peoples over the natural development of culture within well-defined geographical regions. Nineteenth century thought â the product of a colonial age â found it easy to see culture as something brought in by intruders, rather than as something developed by the inhabitants of a region who had to develop suitable methods to harness their natural resources as shaped by the ecology around them.
River systems
It is a well known fact that the main civilisations of the ancient world of Egypt, Mesopotamia, India (Indus Valley), and China were possible only because of the great river systems around which they grew up. The rivers made these civilisations possible, not simply human invention or any special ethnic type that migrated there. If we examine these four great river centres of early civilisation it is clear that the largest and most ideal river region in the world for developing civilisation is India. Egypt grew up around one great river, the Nile that flowed through what was otherwise a dry, rainless desert. Mesopotamia had two rivers but only of moderate size, the Tigris and the Euphrates, flowing through a large desert as well. Both Egypt and Mesopotamia were located in subtropical regions that provided abundant warmth and sunshine for crops, but otherwise suffered from the limited size of their river banks that were their sole steady water supply. China had a large but unpredictable river system, the Yellow River, which frequently overflowed its banks in various floods. It also received abundant rain. But it was centred in a cold northern region, with a limited growing season.
Ancient India, on the other hand, had a massive nexus of numerous great rivers from the Indus in the west to the swamplands of the Gangetic delta in the east. It had both a warm subtropical climate and seasonal abundant rains. This river region included relatively dry regions of the west to the very wet regions of eastern India affording an abundance of crops both in type and quantity. The Indian river system was much larger in size and in arable land, and better in climate than perhaps all the other three river regions put together. No other ecosystem in the world could so easily serve to create an agricultural diversity or the cultural richness that would go with it. Ecologically speaking, north India was the ideal place in the world for the development of a riverine civilisation via agriculture. Bounded by the Himalayas in the north, and lower mountains on the west, east and south, this north Indian river plain is a specific geographical region and ecosystem, whose natural boundaries could easily serve to create and hold together a great civilisation. It was also ideal for producing large populations that depend upon agriculture for their sustenance.
This same network of rivers was ideal for communication and trade. Not surprisingly, the Rigveda, the oldest book of the region, is full of praise for the numerous great rivers of the region, the foremost of which in early ancient times was the Sarasvati, which flowed east of the Yamuna into the Rann of Kachchh, creating an unbroken set of fertile rivers from Punjab to Bengal. This Vedic goddess of speech was a river goddess. The Vedic idea of One Truth but many paths (Rigveda I.164.46) probably reflects this experience of life of many rivers linked to the one sea.
The main point of this article is that if we really want to understand the development of civilisation in ancient India we cannot ignore such ecological and geographical factors. Ancient India was the ideal ecological region for the development of civilisation in the ancient world. Therefore, we should look to an indigenous development of civilisation in the region. We need not import its people, animals, plants, culture or civilisation from the outside, particularly from barren and inhospitable Central Asia, for example, which would not have been suitable to India and which is separated from it geographically by very hard to cross mountain and desert barriers.
New approach
It is time to take a new ecological look at the Vedas, which so far have not been examined adequately ecologically but have been approached mainly according to linguistic, Marxist or Freudian concerns that easily miss the obvious geography or ecology of the text. If we do this, we will discover that even the oldest Vedic text, the Rigveda, clearly describes a region of many vast rivers flowing to the sea, the most important of which was the Sarasvati. The climate that it describes of great rains and monsoons, the symbolism of the great God Indra, is also clearly that of India. The flora and fauna mentioned including the Brahma bull, water buffalo and elephant and its sacred trees of the Pipal, Ashvatta and Shamali is also that of India.
The fall of the Indus or Harappan culture, just as was the case for many in the ancient world, was owing to ecological factors, something that Nineteenth and early Twentieth century migrationist views of history completely missed. It occurred not because of the destruction wrought by the proposed Aryan invaders but by ecological changes brought about by the drying up of the Sarasvati River around 1900 BCE. This did not end civilisation in the region but caused its relocation mainly to the more certain waters of the Ganga to the east. Such a movement is reflected in the shift from Vedic literature that is centred on the Sarasvati to the Puranic literature that is centred on the Ganga.
The great north Indian river system from Punjab to Bihar is perhaps the greatest breadbasket or agricultural centre in the world. Any humans in the region would have been aided by the land, the waters and the climate, affording them a great advantage in the development of language and culture as well. The natural resources provided by the riverine ecosystem of north India could uphold great civilisations over the centuries. From it the peoples and literature of the region had adequate support from nature to sustain their cultural traditions.
Southern river regions
The type of civilisation developed on the rivers of north India could easily connect with the cultures developing on the rivers in the south of the country that shared a common climate and geographical ties. The other main great river region for India is the basins of the Krishna and Godavari rivers in the southeast of India, mainly Andhra Pradesh. This provides another important agricultural centre in the ancient world, which has also not been examined properly. Another important river area is the Narmada and Tapti rivers in Gujarat and Maharashtra. As these were nearby the delta of the Sarasvati, they could have been an extension of it (which is perhaps why the Bhrigu Rishis of this region are so important in Vedic literature).
That the civilisation of north India could have had connections with these southern cultures is also ecologically based. For this we must consider the ecological factors that existed when agriculture began to arise in the world around 10,000 BCE. Before the end of the Ice Age north India was much drier and cooler in climate. This means that if there was any pre-Ice Age basis for agriculture in north India it would have more likely come from these more suitable southern river regions which had better rainfall at that time.
We need to look at the civilisation of India according to geographical and ecological imperatives that are far more certain than historical speculation conditioned by simplistic ideas of ethnicity, linguistics or migrations. In this regard the study of the Sarasvati river system by the geologists of India and linking it to the Sarasvati river as lauded in Vedic literature is probably the key. Civilisation is like a plant that owes its existence to the land on which it grows. We cannot ignore this important fact either for our past or for our future. The current Government of India plan to link all the great rivers of the country represents such a responsible ecological approach which, including reconstituting the old Sarasvati river channel, links the great future of the country with its great past.
DAVID FRAWLEY<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
We need to look at the civilisation of India according to geographical and ecological imperatives that are far more certain than historical speculation conditioned by simplistic ideas of ethnicity, linguistics or migrations.
Ecology is beginning to define how we look at the world and how we look at ourselves. Each geographical region in the world constitutes a special ecosystem â an interrelated habitat for plants and animals shaped by climate and terrain. These ecological factors have a strong effect upon culture as well.
As part of nature ourselves, society arises out of an ecological basis that we cannot ignore. Most civilisations, both in their advance and decline, reflect how people manage the ecosystems in which they live along with their natural resources. Human culture derives largely from its first culture, which is agriculture, our ability to work the land. This depends largely on water, particularly fresh water that is found in rivers, and flat land that can be easily irrigated.
However, so far we have looked at history mainly in a non-ecological way, mainly trying to define it according to political, economic or racial concerns. Our account of ancient history â particularly that of India â has not given adequate regard to ecological factors. It has put too much weight on migration, as if culture came from the outside, rather than on the characteristics and necessities of the ecosystems in which people live and must rely upon for developing a sustainable way of life.
The Aryan invasion theory is such a product of the pre-ecological age of historical theory that emphasised the movements of peoples over the natural development of culture within well-defined geographical regions. Nineteenth century thought â the product of a colonial age â found it easy to see culture as something brought in by intruders, rather than as something developed by the inhabitants of a region who had to develop suitable methods to harness their natural resources as shaped by the ecology around them.
River systems
It is a well known fact that the main civilisations of the ancient world of Egypt, Mesopotamia, India (Indus Valley), and China were possible only because of the great river systems around which they grew up. The rivers made these civilisations possible, not simply human invention or any special ethnic type that migrated there. If we examine these four great river centres of early civilisation it is clear that the largest and most ideal river region in the world for developing civilisation is India. Egypt grew up around one great river, the Nile that flowed through what was otherwise a dry, rainless desert. Mesopotamia had two rivers but only of moderate size, the Tigris and the Euphrates, flowing through a large desert as well. Both Egypt and Mesopotamia were located in subtropical regions that provided abundant warmth and sunshine for crops, but otherwise suffered from the limited size of their river banks that were their sole steady water supply. China had a large but unpredictable river system, the Yellow River, which frequently overflowed its banks in various floods. It also received abundant rain. But it was centred in a cold northern region, with a limited growing season.
Ancient India, on the other hand, had a massive nexus of numerous great rivers from the Indus in the west to the swamplands of the Gangetic delta in the east. It had both a warm subtropical climate and seasonal abundant rains. This river region included relatively dry regions of the west to the very wet regions of eastern India affording an abundance of crops both in type and quantity. The Indian river system was much larger in size and in arable land, and better in climate than perhaps all the other three river regions put together. No other ecosystem in the world could so easily serve to create an agricultural diversity or the cultural richness that would go with it. Ecologically speaking, north India was the ideal place in the world for the development of a riverine civilisation via agriculture. Bounded by the Himalayas in the north, and lower mountains on the west, east and south, this north Indian river plain is a specific geographical region and ecosystem, whose natural boundaries could easily serve to create and hold together a great civilisation. It was also ideal for producing large populations that depend upon agriculture for their sustenance.
This same network of rivers was ideal for communication and trade. Not surprisingly, the Rigveda, the oldest book of the region, is full of praise for the numerous great rivers of the region, the foremost of which in early ancient times was the Sarasvati, which flowed east of the Yamuna into the Rann of Kachchh, creating an unbroken set of fertile rivers from Punjab to Bengal. This Vedic goddess of speech was a river goddess. The Vedic idea of One Truth but many paths (Rigveda I.164.46) probably reflects this experience of life of many rivers linked to the one sea.
The main point of this article is that if we really want to understand the development of civilisation in ancient India we cannot ignore such ecological and geographical factors. Ancient India was the ideal ecological region for the development of civilisation in the ancient world. Therefore, we should look to an indigenous development of civilisation in the region. We need not import its people, animals, plants, culture or civilisation from the outside, particularly from barren and inhospitable Central Asia, for example, which would not have been suitable to India and which is separated from it geographically by very hard to cross mountain and desert barriers.
New approach
It is time to take a new ecological look at the Vedas, which so far have not been examined adequately ecologically but have been approached mainly according to linguistic, Marxist or Freudian concerns that easily miss the obvious geography or ecology of the text. If we do this, we will discover that even the oldest Vedic text, the Rigveda, clearly describes a region of many vast rivers flowing to the sea, the most important of which was the Sarasvati. The climate that it describes of great rains and monsoons, the symbolism of the great God Indra, is also clearly that of India. The flora and fauna mentioned including the Brahma bull, water buffalo and elephant and its sacred trees of the Pipal, Ashvatta and Shamali is also that of India.
The fall of the Indus or Harappan culture, just as was the case for many in the ancient world, was owing to ecological factors, something that Nineteenth and early Twentieth century migrationist views of history completely missed. It occurred not because of the destruction wrought by the proposed Aryan invaders but by ecological changes brought about by the drying up of the Sarasvati River around 1900 BCE. This did not end civilisation in the region but caused its relocation mainly to the more certain waters of the Ganga to the east. Such a movement is reflected in the shift from Vedic literature that is centred on the Sarasvati to the Puranic literature that is centred on the Ganga.
The great north Indian river system from Punjab to Bihar is perhaps the greatest breadbasket or agricultural centre in the world. Any humans in the region would have been aided by the land, the waters and the climate, affording them a great advantage in the development of language and culture as well. The natural resources provided by the riverine ecosystem of north India could uphold great civilisations over the centuries. From it the peoples and literature of the region had adequate support from nature to sustain their cultural traditions.
Southern river regions
The type of civilisation developed on the rivers of north India could easily connect with the cultures developing on the rivers in the south of the country that shared a common climate and geographical ties. The other main great river region for India is the basins of the Krishna and Godavari rivers in the southeast of India, mainly Andhra Pradesh. This provides another important agricultural centre in the ancient world, which has also not been examined properly. Another important river area is the Narmada and Tapti rivers in Gujarat and Maharashtra. As these were nearby the delta of the Sarasvati, they could have been an extension of it (which is perhaps why the Bhrigu Rishis of this region are so important in Vedic literature).
That the civilisation of north India could have had connections with these southern cultures is also ecologically based. For this we must consider the ecological factors that existed when agriculture began to arise in the world around 10,000 BCE. Before the end of the Ice Age north India was much drier and cooler in climate. This means that if there was any pre-Ice Age basis for agriculture in north India it would have more likely come from these more suitable southern river regions which had better rainfall at that time.
We need to look at the civilisation of India according to geographical and ecological imperatives that are far more certain than historical speculation conditioned by simplistic ideas of ethnicity, linguistics or migrations. In this regard the study of the Sarasvati river system by the geologists of India and linking it to the Sarasvati river as lauded in Vedic literature is probably the key. Civilisation is like a plant that owes its existence to the land on which it grows. We cannot ignore this important fact either for our past or for our future. The current Government of India plan to link all the great rivers of the country represents such a responsible ecological approach which, including reconstituting the old Sarasvati river channel, links the great future of the country with its great past.
DAVID FRAWLEY<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->