Sarasvati

In the passing, let me consider Piotr's views on Sarasvati as contained in
Message 8963 on September 2, 2001

[Piotr:] This is circular logic. First, references to the Sarasvati in the
Rigveda are identified with the (full length of) the palaeo-Ghaggar/Hakra
channel, and the name Sarasvati is applied to the latter. Then the fact that
the Vedic literature speaks of Sarasvati and its disappearance in the desert
is taken as proof that the Vedic people were familiar with a still functional
Ghaggar/Hakra river, and that the authors of the Brahmanas must have
witnessed its drying up. Finally, an arbitrary date of the drying-up event is
assumed based on the belief that it was _the_ disaster that marked the
decline of the Indus Valley civilisation, and that, consequently, the
relevant Vedic literature must be dated so far back. However, as Witzel
points out in his `Autochthonous Aryans?', the channel dried up gradually and
a perennial river ending in an inland delta and a cluster of marshy lakes may
have existed well into post-Harappan times. The river-names of Panjab echo
those of Afghanistan, as if the early Indo-Aryans had moved to a new home
transplanting their traditional `river map' to it, as their Iranian cousins
took over and Iranised the original river-names. The prototypical Sarasvati
-- the one that provided the mythological and metaphorical aspects of the
river, can be identified with the Helmand. The striking similarity of even
the modern Helmand (and of its Avestan descriptions) to the Rigvedic
descriptions of Sarasvati, and the location of Arachosia/Haraxvaiti in the
Helmand system can hardly be a matter of coincidence.

VA: There is no circular logic involved. The references in RV suggest a river
which is fed by snow glaciers (not the case with the reduced ghaggar stream
in later times) and flowing from mountains to ocean. This can be wished away
only via tortuous interpretation or passages.

Even today, the local traditions of people in Gujarat, Sindh and Rajasthan
point to various geographical features along the Nara, and other channels and
lakes/water bodies/depressions in the area as related to Sarasvati river. It
is only in later texts that we read of the disappearance of Sarasvati in the
desert. This place is called ‘Vinashana’ or ‘Adarshana’ and the texts
record that initially the river flowed directly to the sea but later ‘went
underground’ to avoid meeting ‘abhirs’ etc. Simultaneously, we note that the
texts no longer refer to Himavant as the source of Sarasvati, but name it as
Plaksha Prasravana – a site identified securely in the Siwaliks. Thus, the
phenomenon of an initial grand river later becoming shorter in length by
draining in an inland location is noted in the texts. The location of
‘Vinanshana’ listed in the texts is also not certain. The older the text,
the further west is Vinashana. Apparently then, the river dried progressively
and the spot called ‘Vinashana’ moved eastward till it stopped at modern
‘Binsar’ in Haryana. The RV also alludes to or mentions sites or regions
along the Sarasvati – Manusa, Illaspada and so on. Later texts mention some
more places like ‘Karoti’ and Prthudaka. All these places exist even today
as mounds of archaeological signficance. None of them has been excavated but
superficial analysis does show PGW (in some cases) BUT preceded by Mature
Harappan and in several cases, even pre-Harappan ware – with all these layers
continuously one after the other.

There is no good way to identify correctly the date at which a particular
river channel dried. But Witzel’s notion that Sarasvati was already a dying
river in the Mature Harappan age is partially true indeed. What is of
significance is the fact that the drying was by and large progressive,
despite periods of more watery phases (witnessed even in historical times due
to frequent shifting course of Satlaj, Beas and Ravi). The river system as
such was quite alive and watery at least in the initial portion of Mature
Harappan stage. And it had much larger flows in pre 2400 BCE.

However, post 1900 or at least post 1500, the Sarasvati seems to have ended
somewhere near Bikaner/Bawalpur as argued by Mughal with the help of
archaeological evidence. or even ceased to be a perenniel stream beyond
Binsar/Sirsa. Professor Witzel liks to point to a verse in RV III.33 that
apparently indicates that the Satlaj and Beas merged with each other. That
DOES NOT mean an already weaker Sarasvati. Oblivious of this argument,
Manohar Lal Bhargava had shown in the 1960’s, on the basis of paleochannels
and literary data, that the Beas and Ravi both fell into Satlaj and the
combimed stream them fed Hakra somewhere in the Bahawalpur region. Thus, it
is certainly possible that Beas and Satlaj met and yet fed the Sarasvati. In
the last 2000 years, the Satlaj has moved back and forth between Ghaggar and
Beas channels about 5 times. Thus, as early as 1888, Oldham had argued that
even if RV III.33 says that Satlaj joined Beas, how does it guarantee that
the Satlaj did not come back to Ghaggar subsequently? [The alternate drying
and swelling of Sarasvati is perhaps alluded to even in the Brahmanas like
the Tandya and Aitareya wherein they describe the miraculous appearance of
Sarasvati and so on].

I also want to point to the fact that the equation of Sarasvati and Ghaggar
has nothing to do with the indigenists as such. It was established and
accepted by colonial surveryers, explorers, philologists, linguists and
archaeologists – Mughal, Allchins, Possehl, Kenoyer, Cunningham, A Stein,
Oldham, Wilhelmy, MacDonell etc. and earlier suggestions linking the RV
Sarasvati with Helmand were dismissed in the ‘Vedic Index’ itself. The
notion that the Helmand gave its name to the Sarasvati is merely a conjecture
not supported by ANY evidence. The Rigvedic description of Sarasvati DOES NOT
match that of Helamand. Nor does the post Rigvedic description of Sarasvati
match that of Helmand. (where is the Vinshana? Where is the Manusha? Where is
the Apaya, Drishadvati, Apaya, Himavant?) A more reasonable suggestion is
that it is the Sarasvati that gave its name to Helmand.
See also page 15-16 of
http://sarasvati.simplenet.com/talageri01.pdf

Incidentally, as far as I recall, Anahita is found only in the non-Gaathic
portions of Avesta and seems to be absent in the text's oldest portions. An
additional reason for diassociating it from Rigvedic Sarasvati.

Your statement that “The prototypical Sarasvati -- the one that provided the
mythological and metaphorical aspects of the river, can be identified with
the Helmand.” Overlooks the evolution of the concept of Sarasvati, from a
river goddess to a goddess of wisdom/speech within the Vedic texts, as
studied by LUDVIK 2000 (See above URL for complete reference) and also
ignores the opinion of several Iranists that the Avestan cognate Anahita
actually derives from the Mesopotamian river cult (and not from an
Indo-Iranian deity). See for instance the very detailed discussion in

DE JONG, Albert; 1997; Traditions of the Magi; E. J. Brill; Leiden

You have certainly raised an important methodological issue by questioning
the relationship between the desiccation of Sarasvati and the demise of IVC.
As far as I know, even non-indigenist archaeologists assign a significant
reason for demise of IVC sites along Ghaggar (and Bahawalpur region) to
desiccation of Sarasvati but do not take it as the only cause of the downfall
of IVC. For instance, Mohenjodaro is said to have died because the Indus
shifted its course. However, the death of sites along Indus cannot be equated
to death of sites along Sarasvati-Ghaggar. The latter had several hundred
sites on its banks whereas the former had just around 50. (not speculating on
those buried by shifting river courses). Moreover, as I stated above, there
is nothing ‘arbitrary’ about assigning a ‘date’ of the drying up of
Sarasvati. It is said to have been a gradual process, just as the IVC died a
slow death. And the drying up of various channels is dated with the help of
the location of sites on the dried beds and so on.

There is a whole lot of literature available on the Sarasvati question.
Unfortunately, EJVS 7.3 is very selective and refers mainly to summaries
available in 'Vedic Sarasvati' (Mehr et al 1999) and is obvlivious of
numerous important studies by M L Bhargava, O P Bharadvaj etc.

Sincerely,

Vishal