Previous Year Question
With reference to the difference between the culture of Rigvedic Aryans and Indus Valley people, which of the following statements is/are correct?
Rigvedic Aryans used the coat of mail and helmet in warfare whereas the people of the Indus Valley Civilization did not leave any evidence of using them.
Rigvedic Aryans knew gold, silver and copper whereas Indus Valley people knew only copper and iron.
Rigvedic Aryans had domesticated the horse whereas there is no evidence of Indus Valley people having been aware of this animal.
Select the correct answer using the code given below:
Correct Answer: C
Detailed Solution
Statement 1: Rigvedic warfare contains references to protective armour, whereas the archaeological record of the Harappan Civilization has not yielded clear evidence of comparable body armour or helmets.
Statement 2: It is wrong to claim that the Indus people knew only copper and iron. The Harappan Civilization was a Bronze Age civilization. Copper and bronze were extensively used, while archaeological evidence also includes ornaments made of gold and silver. The Metropolitan Museum's overview of Harappan material culture specifically records gold and silver jewellery, while copper and bronze artefacts are also well established. Mature Harappan civilization, on the other hand, is not characteristically associated with iron metallurgy.
Thus, Statement 2 is problematic in two respects: the Harappans did know gold and silver, and iron was not a characteristic metal of Mature Harappan culture.
Statement 3 is correct, because the horse occupies a prominent position in Rigvedic culture. However, an important archaeological qualification is necessary. At the Harappan site of Surkotada, the excavation report by J. P. Joshi, published by the Archaeological Survey of India, reported bones identified as Equus caballus. The official Gujarat Tourism account also cites the ASI excavation report while recording the recovery of horse bones at Surkotada.
The identification and interpretation of these equid remains, however, have been debated among archaeozoologists, and scholarly literature contains both support for and objections to their identification as true horse remains.