The Common Identity of the Rigvedic and Harappan Civilizations.

 

 

The Common Identity of the Rigvedic and Harappan Civilizations.

Shrikant G. Talageri

 

Classical Indian Civilization has been known all over the Old World from ancient times: the Greeks, Persians, Chinese and others were all well acquainted with it and their texts give us plentiful evidence of this acquaintance and also of their interaction with this Civilization.

Modern studies have. however, brought up arguably two new reconstructed entities: Vedic Civilization (branched out from an earlier PIE Civilization) and the Harappan Civilization: the first was reconstructed out of modern linguistic and textual studies, and the second from archaeological discoveries of the twentieth century. Is the first of these two the progenitor of Classical Indian Civilization after the replacement of the second (by invasion or immigration of Indo-Aryan speakers into the northwest of India in the 2nd millennium BCE), as postulated by AIT proponents? Or are these two (more or less) one and the same, with Classical Indian Civilization being a development of the same as it spread out into the rest of India absorbing local elements?

There have been many very detailed studies in recent times showing that Classical Indian Civilization is definitely linked to, either as part of or a continuation of, the Harappan Civilization in the northwest. Prof. B B Lal, for example, in his books like "How Deep are the Roots of Indian Civilization? Archaeology Answers" (2009), and "The Ṛigvedic People: 'Invaders'?/'Immigrants'? or Indigenous" (2015), has summarized most of the evidence for this. And doubtless, many other papers presented in various conferences have already, and will further, set out that and more evidence in greater detail.

Here I will set out two particular points of evidence as follows:

I. The Common Geography and Chronology of the Two Entities.

II. The Genetic Evidence — of Cattle.

II.A. Human Genetics.

II.B. Cattle Genetics.

II.C. Cattle and Lactase Persistence.

[But before that, let me clarify a point: when (non-AIT) people talk of the identity between the Vedic and Harappan civilizations, there is some identification-ambiguity in the conclusion: it seems to be assumed that Vedic = Harappan. Even if some of my own assertions in this regard (in discussing the AIT-OIT question) may seem to a casual reader to put forward a similar conclusion, the reality is more nuanced: the Vedic Civilization was, to begin with, and throughout the composition of the Rigveda, the Civilization of the Pūrus and the Pūrus only, with its base in the Haryana-Western-U.P. area (although its geographical horizon in the period of the New Rigveda extended up to Afghanistan in the west) and later it spread out all over North India, mainly eastwards, incorporating within itself the cultures of these areas. On the other hand, the Harappan Civilization from the beginning was the joint civilization of the Druhyus (who later largely migrated out of India already in pre-Vedic and pre-Mature-Harappan times), the Anus (in its northwestern parts), the Yadus (in its southern parts) and the Pūrus (in its northeastern parts). There were other Pūrus and Yadus further inside India who represented more internal cultures.

So anyone demanding evidence for absolute cultural correspondence between the two entities (Rigvedic and Harappan) in the archaeological record need not be taken at all seriously. Is there any site which contains identifiable unique Rigvedic artifacts, and which fits in perfectly with the claimed AIT time-frame, and in fact are such artifacts found in a chain of sites showing a migratory movement into India in that claimed time-frame? Actual yajña kunḍas have been identified in the sites, but this is rejected by claiming they are not yajṇa kuṇḍas. It must be remembered that the assertions of the AIT-supporters about the various stages of the alleged immigration and spread of "Indo-Aryans" in India are totally unsupported by even the faintest correspondences with any archaeological data.

 In all matters pertaining to issues concerning India or Hindus, asking for evidence from the Hindu side while ignoring the clear evidence given, and at the same time providing no clear evidence from the anti-Hindu side while ignoring all refutations of their evidence-less arguments, has always been a characteristic feature of any "debate" or "discussion". And it is time we stopped pandering to debates of this kind.

So, with this understanding, we will examine the evidence].

 

I. The Common Geography and Chronology of the Two Entities.

The total geographical area of the archaeologically attested Harappan Civilization (from its earliest "pre-Harappan" stages) is spread out over an area centered around present-day Pakistan, and including the southern and eastern half of Afghanistan, and the Indian states of Punjab, Haryana, Gujarat, and western half of Rajasthan, with some outliers further inside.

The geographical spread of the Rigvedic Horizon (i.e. the total area covered by geographical references in the Rigveda, not to be assumed as necessarily inhabited only by the Pūrus/Rigvedic people) is almost roughly the same, or at least exactly the same as the northern two thirds of the Harappan area: in the west it extends up to Afghanistan (the westernmost area referred to being the Sarayu river) and in the east to (the western parts of) the Ganga/Jahnāvī  and the Yamuna (the easternmost areas referred to being the Matsyas on the banks of the Yamuna in western U.P, and the Kīkaṭas, identified by Witzel as a people to the south-east of Haryana: "in eastern Rajasthan or western Madhya Pradesh," WITZEL 1995b:333 fn).

Therefore, the geographical horizon of both the archaeologically attested Harappan Civilization and the textually attested Rigvedic civilization is more or less the same.

Is this because chronologically the "two entities" belong to different time periods within the same broad geographical area: a contingency to be treated by AIT-supporters as a disruption and replacement of the Harappan Civilization by the Vedic Civilization, and by a section of OIT-supporters as the Vedic Civilization being a continuation of the Harappan Civilization? Very clearly not: as the evidence shows, the Rigvedic and Harappan Civilizations were not only geographically both within the same broad geographical horizon, but also chronologically both were within the same broad time period.

The roots of the archaeologically attested Harappan Civilization (see also the Wikipedia article on "Indus Vally Civilization") go back to at least 7000 BCE, but the main phases of the full-fledged Civilization are as follows:

1. Pre-Harappan: 3300-2600 BCE.

2. Mature Harappan: 2600-1900 BCE.

3. Late Harappan: 1900-1300 BCE.

The textually attested Rigvedic Civilization also has an almost identical division into phases:

1. Old Rigveda: 3300-2600 BCE.

2. New Rigveda: 2600-1900 BCE.

3. Finalization Period and last parts of Book 10: 1900-1400 BCE.

 

While the chronological phases of the Harappan Civilization are attested by the scientifically dated archaeological artifacts and materials, the chronological phases of the Rigvedic Civilization are attested by (a) the chronological analysis of the difference between the Rigvedic vocabulary in the hymns of the New Rigveda and the Rigvedic vocabulary in the hymns of the Old Rigveda; and (b) the comparison of the Rigvedic vocabulary with the linguistic data in the Mitanni records of West Asia (which are scientifically dated) and in the Iranian Avesta. The evidence, step by step, is absolute and clear:

1. The Inscriptional Nature of the Rigveda:

The Rigveda is a text which has been preserved orally from the time of composition of each hymn without the slightest change. As usual, I will quote Michael Witzel's repeated testimony:

“Right from the beginning, in Ṛgvedic times, elaborate steps were taken to insure the exact reproduction of the words of the ancient poets. As a result, the Ṛgveda still has the exact same wording in such distant regions as Kashmir, Kerala and Orissa, and even the long-extinct musical accents have been preserved. Vedic transmission is thus superior to that of the Hebrew or Greek Bible, or the Greek, Latin and Chinese classics. We can actually regard present-day Ṛgveda recitation as a tape recording of what was composed and recited some 3000 years ago. In addition, unlike the constantly reformulated Epics and Purāṇas, the Vedic texts contain contemporary materials. They can serve as snapshots of the political and cultural situation of the particular period and area in which they were composed. […] as they are contemporary, and faithfully preserved, these texts are equivalent to inscriptions. […] they are immediate and unchanged evidence, a sort of oral history ― and sometimes autobiography ― of the period, frequently fixed and ‘taped’ immediately after the event by poetic formulation. These aspects of the Vedas have never been sufficiently stressed […]” (WITZEL 1995a:91).

“[…] the Vedas were composed orally and they always were and still are, to some extent, oral literature. They must be regarded as tape recordings, made during the Vedic period and transmitted orally, and usually without the change of a single word.” (WITZEL 1997b:258).

“It must be underlined that just like an ancient inscription, these words have not changed since the composition of these hymns c.1500 BCE, as the RV has been transmitted almost without any change […] The modern oral recitation of the RV is a tape recording of c.1700-1200 BCE.” (WITZEL 2000a:§8).

“The language of the RV is an archaic form of Indo-European. Its 1028 hymns are addressed to the gods and most of them are used in ritual. They were orally composed and strictly preserved by exact repetition through by rote learning, until today. It must be underlined that the Vedic texts are ‘tape recordings’ of this archaic period. Not one word, not a syllable, not even a tonal accent were allowed to be changed. The texts are therefore better than any manuscript, and as good as any well preserved contemporary inscription. We can therefore rely on the Vedic texts as contemporary sources for names of persons, places, rivers (WITZEL 1999c)” (WITZEL 2006:64-65).

The Rigveda has one big advantage: it is the longest inscription from the ancient world, with 1028 hymns and 10552 verses. It has one disadvantage: not being in a datable material form, it cannot be exactly dated. However, this disadvantage vanishes on comparison of the Rigvedic data with the related data from the Avesta and the Mitanni records (the latter of which are scientifically dated records in material forms).

2. The Clear Chronological Division into an Old Rigveda and a New Rigveda:

The scholars, from Oldenberg through Witzel to Proferes, are unanimous that the Rigveda basically falls into two parts:

The Rigveda consists of 10 Manḍalas or books (containing 1028 hymns and 10552 verses), chronologically classified as follows:

To begin with, the western academic scholars themselves, from Oldenberg through Michael Witzel to Theodore Proferes (see TALAGERI 2008:132-135 for details), have classified the books of the Rigveda into two groups: the family books (2-7) and the non-family books (1, 8-10), and testified, on the basis of their own analyses, that the family books were composed and compiled before the non-family books. Further, they have detached book 5 from the other family books and concluded that it agrees with the non-family books rather than with the other family books. By their analysis, the books of the Rigveda can be classified into three categories: the earlier family books (2-4, 6-7), the later family book (5), and the even later non-family books (1, 8-10).

The central essence of their classification is:

(a) The original or first Rigveda consisted of the (presently-numbered) family books 2-7: “The structure of the text has been more extensively studied, already by Bergaigne (1878-83) and Oldenberg in the 19^th century. From the latter’s Prolegomena (Oldenberg 1888), it appears that the Ṛgveda was composed and assembled in the following stages, beginning ‘at the centre’ with books 2-7” (WITZEL 1995b:309).

(b) Then non-family books 1 and 8 were added on either side of the family books. Later Book 9, and much later book 10, were added: "At a later stage, Books 1 and 8 were added to the case like book ends. It was likely at this stage that Book 9 was added as well. Lastly, the heterogenous material in Book 10 was appended to the entire collection” (PROFERES 1999:10).

Witzel even provides a graph, vividly showing this order of composition and assembly, with Books 2-7 as the earliest core of the text, parts of 1 and 8 forming the second layer, the rest of 1 and 8 forming the third layer, followed by Book 9, and finally by “the great appendix to the Ṛgveda” (WITZEL 1995b:310), Book 10.

(c) But Book 5, though a family book, shares all its characteristics with the later non-family books rather than with the earlier family books. As Proferes notes after detailed analysis of the data: “there were important interactions between the priestly groups represented in Books 1, 5 and 8. As Oldenberg [1888b:213-215] has shown, evidence from the hymns themselves supports this conclusion” (PROFERES 1999:75).

The pavamāna collection consists primarily of late authors, those from Books 1, 5, 8 and in a limited number of cases, 10” (PROFERES 1999:69).

In a more recent paper, he repeats the above point:

“The clan book composers, except those from Book 5, are not well represented among the pavamāna composers of Book 9” (PROFERES 2003:12).

“These circles are represented by the Kāṇva, Ātreya and Āngirasa authors from Books 1, 5 and 8, as well as by descendants of these authors” (PROFERES 2003:16).

“The breakdown of the strict separation of the ritual poetry of different clans and the preservation of that poetry together in a single collection began with the Kāṇva, Ātreya and Āngirasa poets of Books 1, 5 and 8” (PROFERES 2003:18).

[Most significantly]: “The connections of Book 5 with Books 1 and 8 and not with the other clan books (2-4, 6-7) is interesting.” (PROFERES 2003:16, fn).

(d) The scholars have also identified some hymns in each of the family books which were redacted (modified) at the time of addition of books 1 and 8. These may be called the Redacted Hymns.

Thus, we get:

a) Five Old Books (2-4,6-7; minus the Redacted Hymns in each book) comprising the Old Rigveda.

(b) Five New Books (1,5,8-10) comprising the New Rigveda.

(c) And Between the two are the Redacted Hymns from the five Old Books.

That this division represents a fundamental chronological division within the Rigveda is clear from a study of the New Words and New Meters found only in the New Rigveda and the Redacted Hymns, and completely missing in the Old Rigveda.

 

As I have shown in my article "Final Version of the Chronological Gulf between the Old Rigveda and the New Rigveda" the huge number of New Words and New Meters in the Rigveda is found, in the three categories of hymns, as follows:

1. Old Rigveda Books 2,3,4,6,7:  0/280  Hymns, 0/2368 verses, 0 words.  +0 hymns with New Meters.

2. Redacted Hymns in Old Books 2,3,4,6,7:  61/62  Hymns,  470/873 verses, 724 words. +6 hymns with New Meters.

3. New Rigveda Books 1,5,8,9,10:  684/686 Hymns, 4256/7311 verses, 6828 words. +96 hymns with New Meters.

Thus, out of 280 Old Hymns and 2368 old verses, not a single hymn has any New Word or New Meter.

But in 62 Redacted Hymns and 873 redacted verses, there are 724 New Words. And 6 hymns have New Meters.

And in 686 New Hymns and 7311 new verses, there are 6828 New Words. And 96 hymns have New Meters.

Most of these New Words and New Meters continue to be found in subsequent Vedic texts and Classical Sanskrit.

This is the extent of the chronological gulf separating the Old Rigveda from the New Rigveda, showing that the composition of the Old Rigveda took place in a much more ancient age than the composition of the New Rigveda. And, as I have pointed out in the article, the number of words, hymns and verses given in my article may just be the tip of the iceberg.

 

3. The Chronological Time-Frame of the New Rigveda:

Before the Ashoka pillars and edicts, there is no scientifically datable evidence of chronology anywhere in India. The Rigveda, though they are in effect "inscriptions", "snapshots" and "tape recordings" (in the words of Witzel) of their form at the time each hymn was composed, cannot be scientifically dated (carbon dating, etc.). The same is the case with the hymns of the ancient Iranian Avesta which is so closely culturally linked to the Rigveda. However, another third database closely linked to the two provides us the scientific dating which gives us the general scientific time frame for the Rigveda: this database is the actual scientifically dated linguistic material concerning the Mitanni people who ruled a huge part of Syria and Iraq between 1550-1260 BCE, and are known from other records to have been present in West Asia at least two centuries earlier.

These Mitanni people were of "Indo-Aryan" linguistic origin, a fact accepted by the scholarly academic world. In fact, the presence of "Indo-Aryans" in West Asia as early as 1750 BCE was so unsettling to the theory that "Indo-Aryans" entered India and composed the Rigveda only after 1500 BCE, that a theory was agreed upon that the Mitanni Indo-Aryans had separated from the pre-Vedic Indo-Aryans in Central Asia itself at some early period, and had migrated westwards into West Asia even before the pre-Vedic Indo-Aryans entered northwestern India to later compose the Rigveda.

However, an examination of the common names and name-types in the Rigveda and the Mitanni records shows that the common elements are found only in the New Rigveda (and continue to be found in later texts) but are totally missing in the Old Rigveda: the distribution of these common Rigvedic-Mitanni names and name types in the Rigveda is as follows:

Among the composers of the Rigveda (108 hymns):

New Rigveda: 108 hymns:

V. 3-6, 24-26, 46, 47, 52-61, 81-82 (21 hymns).

I. 12-23, 100 (13 hymns).

VIII. 1-5, 23-26, 32-38, 46, 68-69, 87, 89-90, 98-99 (24 hymns).

IX. 2, 27-29, 32, 41-43, 97 (9 hymns).

X. 14-29, 37, 46-47, 54-60, 65-66, 75, 102-103, 118, 120, 122, 132, 134, 135, 144, 154, 174, 179 (41 hymns).

Within the references in the Rigveda (79 hymns, 128 verses, 131 references):

Redacted Hymns: 2 hymns, 2 verses and 2 references:

VII. 33.9 (1 hymn, 1 verse and reference).

IV. 30.18 (1 hymn, 1 verse and reference).

New Rigveda: 77 hymns, 126 verses and 129 references:

V. 19.3; 27.4,5,6; 33.9; 36.6; 44.10; 52.1; 61.5,10; 79.2; 81.5 (9 hymns, 12 verses and references).

I. 35.6; 36.10,11,17,18; 38.5; 45.3,4; 83.5; 100.16,17; 112.10,15,20; 116.2,6,16; 117.17,18; 122.7,13; 139.9; 163.2; 164.46 (13 hymns, 24 verses and references).

VIII. 1.30,30,32; 2.37,40; 3.16; 4.20; 5.25; 6.45; 8.18,20; 9.10; 21.17,18; 23.16,23,24; 24.14,22,23,28,29; 26.9,11; 32.30; 33.4; 34.16; 35.19,20,21; 36.7; 37.7; 38.8; 46.21,33; 49.9; 51.1,1; 68.15,16; 69.8,18; 86.17 87.3 (24 hymns, 42 verses and 44 references).

IX. 43.3; 65.7 (2 hymns, 2 verses and references).

X. 10.7,9,13,14; 12.6; 13.4; 14.1,5,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15; 15.8; 16.9; 17.1; 18.13; 21.5; 33.7; 47.6; 49.6; 51.3; 52.3; 58.1; 59.8; 60.7,10; 61.26; 64.3; 73.11; 80.3; 92.11; 97.16; 98.5,6,8; 123.6; 132.7,7; 135.17; 154.4,5; 165.4 (29 hymns,  46 verses and 47 references).

 

The Avesta data shows an even more impressive picture. The distribution of these common Rigvedic-Avestan names, name types and words in the Rigveda is as follows:

Among the composers of the Rigveda (300 hymns):

Redacted Hymns: 1 hymn:

III. 36.

New Rigveda:  299 hymns:

V. 1, 3-6, 9, 10, 20, 24-26, 31, 33-36, 44, 46-49, 52-62, 67, 68, 73-75, 81, 82 (39 hymns).

I. 12-30, 36-43, 44-50, 99, 100, 105, 116-139 (61 hymns).

VIII. 1-5, 10, 14, 15, 23-38, 43-44, 46-51, 53, 55-58, 62, 68, 69, 75, 85-87, 89, 90, 92, 97-99 (50 hymns).

IX. 2, 3, 5-24, 27-29, 32-36, 41-43, 53-60, 63, 64, 68, 72, 80-82, 91, 92, 94, 95, 97, 99-103, 111, 113, 114 (61 hymns).

X. 1-7, 10, 14--29, 37, 42-47, 54-66, 72, 75-76, 90, 96-98, 101-104, 106, 109, 111-115, 118, 120, 122, 128, 130, 132, 134, 135, 139, 144, 147, 148, 151, 152, 154, 157, 163, 166, 168, 170, 172, 174, 175, 179, 186, 188 (88 hymns).

Within the references in the Rigveda (239 hymns, 454 verses, 521 references):

Redacted Hymns: 14 hymns, 20 verses and 21 references:

VI.15.17; 16.13,14; 47.24 (3 hymns, 4 verses and references).

III.38.6; 53.21 (2 hymns, 2 verses and references).

VII.33.9,12,13; 55.8,8; 59.12; 104.24 (4 hymns, 6 verses, 7 references).

IV.30.8,18; 37.7; 57.7,8 (3 hymns, 5 verses and references).

II.32.8; 41.5,12 (2 hymns, 3 verses and references).

New Rigveda: 225 hymns, 434 verses, 500 references:

V. 10.3,6; 18.2; 19.3,3; 27.1,4,5,6; 30.9,12,14; 31.10; 33.9,10; 34.8; 35.4; 36.3,6; 41.5,9; 44.5,10,10,10,11,11,12,12; 45.11; 52.1; 53.13; 54.13; 61.5,6,9,10,18,19; 62.6,7,8; 64.7; 74.4; 75.8; 79.2; 81.5 (23 hymns, 42 verses, 47 references).

I. 7.1; 10.2; 18.1; 22.14; 23.22; 24.12,13; 25.15; 30.3,4; 33.8,14,15; 35.6; 36.10,10,10,11,17,17,18; 38.5; 39.3; 42.9; 43.4,6; 44.6; 45.3,3,3,4; 51.1,3,13; 52.1; 59.1; 61.7; 66.1; 80.16; 83.5,5; 88.1,5; 91.6; 100.16,17; 104.3;  112.7,9,10,10,11,12,15,15,15,19,20,23,23; 114.5; 116.1,2,6,6,12,16,16,20,21,23; 117.7,8,8,17,17,18,18,20,22,24; 119.9; 121.11; 122.4,5,7,7,13,14; 125.3; 126.3; 138.2; 139.9; 140.1; 158.5; 162.3,7,10,10,15; 163.2,2; 164.7,16,46; 167.2,5,6; 169.3; 187.10;  188.5; 190.1; 191.16 (50 hymns, 95 verses, 113 references).

VIII. 1.11,30,30,32; 2.1,9,37,38,40,40,41; 3.9,10,12,12,12,16; 4.1,2,2,19,20; 5.25,25,37,37,37,38,39; 6.6,39,45,46,46,48; 7.23; 8.18,20; 9.7,10,15; 12.16; 17.8,12,14; 19.24,37; 20.4; 21.17,18; 23.2,16,23,24,24,28; 24.7,14,18,22,23,28,28,29; 25.2,22; 26.2,9,11; 27.19; 32.1,2,30; 33.4,17; 34.3,16; 35.19,20,21; 36.7; 37.7; 38.8; 45.5,11,26,30; 46.21.21,21,22,24,24,31,33; 47.13,14,15,16,17; 49.9; 50.5; 51.1,1,1,1,1,2,2; 52.1,2,2,2,2; 54.1,2,2,8; 55.3; 56.2,4; 59.3; 62.10; 66.8; 68.10,15,15,16,16,17; 69.8,18; 70.15; 71.2,14; 74.4,4,13,13,13; 75.6; 77.2,5,10,10; 80.8; 85.3,4; 87.3; 91.3,5: 92.2,25; 93.1; 97.12; 98.9 103.8 (55 hymns, 128 verses, 157 references).

IX. 8.5; 11.2,4; 43.3; 58.3; 61.13; 65.7; 67.32; 83.4; 85.12; 86.36,47; 96.18; 97.7,17,38; 98.12; 99.4; 107.11; 112.4; 113.3,8; 114.2 (18 hymns, 23 verses, 23 references).

X. 8.8; 9.8; 10.4,7,9,13,14; 11.2; 12.6; 13.4; 14.1,1,5,5,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15; 15.8; 16.9; 17.1,1,2,5; 18.13,13; 20.10; 21.5,5; 23.6,7; 24.4; 27.7,10,17; 28.4; 31.11; 33.7; 34.1,11; 39.7; 47.3,6; 48.2; 49.5,6; 51.3; 52.3; 55.8; 58.1,1; 59.6,8,10; 60.5,7,10,10,10; 61.13,17,18,21,26; 62.8; 63.17; 64.2,3,8,16,17; 65.12,12; 67.7; 72.3,4; 73.11; 80.3; 82.2; 85.5,6,37,37,40,41; 86.4,6,23,23; 87.12,16; 89.7; 90.5,13; 91.14; 92.10,11; 93.14,15,15; 94.13; 95.3,15; 96.5,6,8; 97.16; 98.1,3,5,6,7,8; 99.6,11; 101.3; 103.3; 105.2; 106.5,6; 109.4; 115.8,9; 120.6,9; 123.4,6,7; 124.4; 129.1; 130.5; 132.7,7; 135.1,7; 136.6; 139.4,6; 146.6; 148.5; 150.3; 154.4,5; 159.3; 164.2; 165.1,2,3,4,4,5; 166.1; 177.2; 189.2 (79 hymns, 146 verses, 160 references).

The complete absence of these names, name-types and words in the Old Rigveda shows that they obviously cannot be pre-Rigvedic names and name types as would be compulsorily assumed in any AIT scenario, but are new names/words and name types which developed only in the period of the New Rigveda. As these names, name types and a crucial word maṇi of the New Rigveda are recorded in the Mitanni (as well as Avestan) data, the proto-Mitanni Indo-Aryans (and the proto-Avestan Iranians) must therefore have separated from the other (Vedic) Indo-Aryans during the period of the New Rigveda, and well after the closure of the period of composition of the Old Rigveda.

Since:

a) the Mitanni are already present in Syria and Iraq in West Asia, far outside the geographical horizon of the New Rigveda (western U.P.-Haryana to Afghanistan), already by 1750 BCE, and

b) the western scholars accept that the Indo-Aryan (Vedic) elements in the Mitanni data are ancestral elements from much further back in the past (these elements being described by Mallory as "little more than the residue of a dead language in Hurrian, and that the symbiosis that produced the Mitanni may have taken place centuries earlier", MALLORY 1989:42, and by Witzel as the "remnants" of Indo-Aryan in the Hurrite language of the Mitanni, WITZEL 2005:361),

therefore it means that those ancestors with the common New-Rigveda-Avesta-Mitanni vocabulary were emigrants from within the geographical horizon of the New Rigveda (western U.P.-Haryana to Afghanistan) from a point of time long before 2000 BCE.

And as the geographical horizon of the Old Rigveda, which goes back in time long before the development of the common New-Rigveda-Avesta-Mitanni vocabulary, is not to the west but to the east of the geographical horizon of the New Rigveda, starting in western-U.P.-Haryana and extending only to the central river of the Punjab in the earliest period, the Old Rigveda must go back, at the most conservative estimate, to at least 3000 BCE.

The fact that the area as well as the time frame of the Harappan and the  Rigvedic civilizations coincide, combined with the fact that the Rigveda does not refer to any non-Indo-European people, and that the river names and animal names even in the Old Rigveda are already purely Indo-Aryan names, shows that the Harappan and Vedic civilizations (with the proviso mentioned at the very beginning of this article) are one and the same.

 

II. The Genetic Evidence — of Cattle

Since most discourse on the question of "Aryan" or Indo-European origins (or the AIT-OIT) nowadays focuses on "genetic" evidence, it is significant that the only genetic evidence that shows anything shows that the Harappan and Vedic civilizations are one and the same. And the only genetic evidence that shows anything is not the genetic evidence of human beings (which shows nothing) but the genetic evidence of cattle (which helps us to identify the Homeland).

II.A. Human Genetics:

All human beings belong to one single species and subspecies, homo sapiens, while cattle belong to two different species, bos taurus and bos indicus (although some taxonomists treat the two as subspecies of one species). And while DNA genomes and haplogroups may show ancestry, they do not indicate the language spoken (presently or even originally) by the individuals who have that DNA sequence or genome. Although some "eminent" scientists like David Reich have spent all their time trying to draw direct ancestral links between DNA types and language families (and he has not done this only in respect of the Indo-European language family), objective examination disproves their theories.\

It is generally the haplogroup R1a1 which is touted as the haplogroup which is a marker of Indo-European languages. In his much propagated "Reich Report" on India (REICH 2018), however, Reich hardly refers to R1a1, and he speaks generally of "Steppe DNA". However, he accepts that the earliest and innermost (within India) evidence of this "Steppe DNA" that he has found is (in the words of his spokesperson, Tony Joseph): "the DNA of forty-one ancient individuals from the Swat valley, who lived approximately between 1200 and 800 BCE - about a millennium and a half later than the outliers in BMAC and more than half a millennium after the Harappan Civilization started declining around 1900 BCE" (JOSEPH 2018:95). The Swat valley is in the northernmost frontier areas of present-day Pakistan bordering Central Asia, and no other ancient DNA is recorded of this "Steppe DNA" in India. This very late and peripheral evidence, of the arrival of people bearing "Steppe DNA" into the northernmost borderlands of India, is treated by Reich and his foot-soldiers as proof that these "Steppe DNA"-bearers found after 1200 BCE were the linguistic ancestors of the composers of a text, the Rigveda, which, as we saw, on the evidence of the carbon-dated Mitanni evidence in Iraq and Syria, goes back beyond 3000 BCE in the eastern interior of North India.

[Even if we accept the disproved date of 1200 BCE for the completion of the Rigveda, it still means pleading that people just entering from Central Asia after 1200 BCE were the linguistic ancestors of the composers of a text of 1200 BCE whose geographical horizon is spread out in the east within India to as far as the Ganga and which is totally unacquainted with any non-Indo-Europeans over this whole area — an area in which, incidentally, all the rivers already have purely Indo-Aryan names!]

 

When it comes to R1a1, the facts totally disprove the claim that R1a1 is the "genetic signature" of the "Aryans" (JOSEPH 2018:167, etc.) or Indo-European language speakers, as well as the claim that it originated in or spread out (with migrating Indo-European speakers) from the Steppes.

This haplogroup is found most strongly concentrated mainly in two Indo-European-speaking areas: in the Northwest-India-Afghanistan belt, and in and around Eastern Europe. It may be noted that, if it is accepted that R1a1 is the "genetic signature" of the "Aryans" (a big if), it can be interpreted both ways:

(a) that it indicates either the Steppe Homeland (eastern Europe) or the Indian Homeland (Northwest-India-Pakistan-Afghanistan), or

(b) that it indicates either a  concentration of the "genetic signature" of the "Aryans" in the eastern frontier areas of Europe in the case of "Aryans" marching westwards into Europe, or in the northwestern frontier areas of India in the case of "Aryans" marching southeastwards into India.

So which of the two scenarios is correct, i.e. which Homeland is indicated by the distribution of R1a1?

 

1. In the case of Eastern Europe, we find a high concentration of R1a1 in the Slavic and Baltic branches of Indo-European languages: Russian (43-47), Ukrainian (50-54), Czech (41), Polish (56), Belarus (45-51), Lithuanian (45), although in some areas it is reported to be as high as 65%. But then even non-Indo-European speakers in eastern Europe have high percentage: Uralo-Altaic Hungarians (56). However, when we move southwards, the percentage falls sharply: thus the Slavic speaking Croats (27-38) and Serbs (14), etc.

This becomes even more stark and dismal when we consider the percentage of R1a1 in the five other Indo-European branches to the south and west of Eastern Europe:

a) The Hellenic Greeks (11-17),

b) the Illyrian Albanians (2-10),

c) the Italic Spanish/Portuguese (2), Italians (4-11), Romanians (actually in Eastern Europe: 20),

d) the Celtic Irish-Welsh-Cornish- Scottish (1-7),

e) the Germanic English (1-7), Dutch (4), Germans (7-31, 31 being the highest among Germanic speakers in parts of the northeast), Scandinavia (20-27, also in Orkney in England, where the people are of Scandinavian origin, and 27 also among the non-Indo-European Finnish Scandinavians).

R1a1 is almost completely absent in the non-Indo-European Basque speakers in the west (Spain-France).

This is not the case only within Europe, but further east also: the areas to the south of the Steppes right up to Iran have low percentages of R1a1; e.g. the two Indo-European branches in West Asia:

a) Thraco-Phrygian Armenians (2-9), Iranians (3-4 in the west, 5 rising to 20 in the east, including among the Parsis who migrated to India). The non-Indo-European Caucasian language speakers, who come between the Steppes and Armenia-Iran, also generally have low R1a1 (2-13).

It will be seen that, by and large, it is the area rather than the language-family which indicates the high or low percentage of R1a1: both Indo-European and non-Indo-European language speakers in Eastern Europe have high R1a1, while both Indo-European and non-Indo-European language speakers in western and southern Europe (including SE Europe) and in areas to the south of the Steppes have low R1a1. Eastern Europe (including the Ukrainian Steppes) is therefore an R1a1-high area, but it is definitely not the center of diffusion of the R1a1 haplogroup.

 

2. In the case of Northwest-India-Pakistan-Afghanistan, also, we find very high concentration of R1a1 as in Eastern Europe: Pashtun (49-51), Sindhi (49), Nooristani (60), Kashmiri Muslims (40), Kashmiri Gujars (41), Punjab-Haryana Khatri (67), Punjab Haryana Ahir (63), Gujarat Bhanushali (67), Gujarat Lohana (60), Gujarat Kathodi (40), to name some of the most prominent groups analyzed for the haplogroup.

But this high concentration is not isolated in one block as in Eastern Europe, it is also found in the east: and it is distributed among all castes. Among Brahmins, the eastern Brahmins apparently have high R1a1 (in fact, among the highest in the world): Bengal (49-72), Bihar (60), eastern UP (48-67), as also in the Himalayan areas of Himachal Pradesh-Uttarakhand (47) while Brahmins in the west have comparatively less: Punjab (36) Kashmir Pandits (20), Jammu (38), western UP (40), Gujarat (33). Compare the R1a1 of the Brahmins of Punjab, Kashmir and Gujarat with the higher-R1a1 of some middle castes from the same states given above! Even some SC communities have higher R1a1 in the east than the Brahmins of the west, e.g. Bihar Paswans (40). Note also some other western non-Brahmin caste groups: e.g. Punjab Balmikis (33), Gujarat Charans (36), Gujarat Rabaris (32), Gujarat Dongri Bhils (26), Haryana Meo (31), Rajasthan Meena (38), Rajasthan Meghwal (30), etc.. So clearly there is no Brahmin-R1a1 equation.

And there is no Indo-Europan-R1a1 equation either, and the presence of R1a1 is found in other extreme corners of India, even if not as highly concentrated as in some of the groups in North India given above. Thus we have the speakers  of non-Indo-European familes: Burushaski (25-28), Sino-Tibetan Balti (46) and Dravidian  Brahui (35-40) in the northwest, but note the speakers of Sino-Tibetan Meitei (50) in Manipur in the extreme east. And many of the pristine Dravidian tribes in South India also have reasonable R1a1: Chenchu (26), Kota (23), Medar (39), Ezhava (24), Korava (24), Andh (31), Kare-Vokkal (27), etc. And to the north in Central Asia, the Uralo-Altaic Uighur (22).

Compare the high or reasonably high rate of R1a1 of all these non-Indo-European speakers (Burushaski, Sino-Tibetan, Dravidian, Uralo-Altaic) in and around India, let alone the Indo-Aryan speakers of so many tribes and castes in India, given above, with the much lower rate of so many Indo-European branches (Greek, Albanian, Celtic, Italic, Germanic, Armenian, west Iranian — the last contrasting sharply with the east Iranian speakers in Afghanistan, Central Asia and Pakistan: Pashtun, Baluchi, Nooristani), and of the non-Indo-European speakers (Caucasian, Basque) in Europe and to the south of the Steppes.

If (again, a big if) R1a1 is to be associated with "Aryans", the weight of evidence would still be in favor of a North Indian origin than with a Steppe (East-European) origin.

II.B. Cattle Genetics:

The genetic evidence of cattle (apart from the evidence, genetic or otherwise, of some more animal species), on the other hand, is very unambiguous, and very clearly disproves the AIT and proves the OIT.

When AIT supporters claim that the Harappans and the Vedic people were completely different from each other, the most common argument is that the Harappans represented an "urban" culture, while the Indo-European Vedic people were "pastoralists". Ironically, they fail to realize that this particular circumstance — of "pastoral culture"— constitutes the biggest and most irrefutable evidence that the Harappans and the Rigvedic people were both part of the same broad cultural milieu. Only very naïve people will assume that the Harappan civilization consisted only of cities: no "urban" civilization can exist unless it is supported by a rich agricultural and pastoral culture flourishing all around it. And the biggest common point showing the common identity of the Harappan and Rigvedic cultures is Pastoralism: the evidence of cattle:

 

1. The common pastoral culture:

That PIE culture, and therefore also the culture of the "Indo-Aryans" who "invaded" or "migrated into" India,  was a "pastoral" culture is a central part of the AIT.

Proto-Indo-European: The centrality of pastoralism to the PIE culture is supported by the linguistic evidence:

a) The cow/bull/cattle is probably the only animal (other than the dog, domesticated from prehistoric times) which has a form of the reconstructed PIE name in every single branch: PIE *g^wṓus,  Indo-Aryan Skt. gáuh, Iranian Av. gāuš, Armenian kov, Greek boûs,  Albanian ka, Anatolian Hier.Luw. wawa-, Tocharian keu, Italic Latin bōs, Celtic Old Irish bō, Germanic German kuh, Baltic Lithuanian guovs, Slavic OCS govedo.

b) Gamkrelidze, an advocate of the Anatolian Homeland theory, points out that "the economic function of the cow as a dairy animal can be reconstructed for a period of great antiquity" (GAMKRELIDZE 1995:485), and further that "The presence of cows and bulls among domestic animals goes back to an ancient period well before the domestication of the wild horse. Evidence of domesticated bulls and cows is found by the beginning of the Neolithic" (GAMKRELIDZE 1995:489).

Rigvedic: The Rigvedic culture is likewise, a pastoral culture best and most fully representing the PIE heritage:

The Rigveda is an extremely cow-centered text. Not only is the cow mentioned many more times than any other animal (including the horse), but the word go-/gau- in the Rigveda is replete with many naturalistic and mystic meanings (where it represents the rays of the sun, the earth, the stars, and many other more mystic things not within the scope of this article) showing it to be a central feature of the Rigvedic religion and socio-economic environment. But even more linguistically important is that the Sanskrit language contains every single common IE word associated with cows and cattle:

Mallory tells us there are three different words for "cow" in the IE languages, *g^wṓus, *h1eĝh, and *wokéh_a-. The first, as we saw, is found in all the twelve branches. As for the other words for cow, bull, cattle, they are all found in Indo-Aryan + in different other branches:

a. *h1eĝh "cow": Skt. ahī-, Armenian ezn, Celtic (Old Irish) ag.

b. *wokéh_a- "cow": Skt. vaśā-, Italic (Latin) vacca.

c. *phekhu- "livestock": Skt. paśu-, Iranian (Avestan) pasu-, Italic (Latin) pecū, Germanic (Old English) feoh, Baltic (Lithuanian) pēkus.

d. *uk^(w)sēn "ox": Skt. ukṣan-, Iranian (Avestan) uxšan, Tocharian okso, Germanic (English) ox, Celtic (Old Irish) oss.

e. *wṛs-en "bull": Skt. vṛṣṇí-, Iranian (Avestan) varəšna-.

f. *usr- "cow/bull": Skt. usra/usrā, Germanic ūro (from ūrochso).

g. *domh_oyos "young bull":  Skt. damya-, Celtic (Old Irish) dam, Albanian dem, Greek damálēs.

This last is particularly significant. Gamkrelidze points out the following: "that speakers of Proto-Indo-European were among those who domesticated wild cattle is also shown by the presence in Indo-European of another term for 'bull', derived from the verb *t'emH- 'tame, subdue: bridle: force': OIr dam 'bull', Ved. damya- 'young bull to be tamed', Alb. dem 'young bull', (Mayrhofer 1963:II.35), Gr. damálēs, 'young bull to be tamed', damálē 'heifer'" (GAMKRELIDZE 1995:491). The weight of the evidence, however, shows that this "taming" took place in the area of the Vedic people in the Indus-Sarasvati area, and not in West Asia as Gamkrelidze tries to suggest.

Further, the following two words also illustrate the developed role of dairying in the PIE world:

a) Skt. goṣṭhá- and Celtiberian (an extinct Celtic language spoken in Spain) boustom, "cattle-shed"; and

b) a common PIE word for "udder": Skt. ūdhar-, Greek oŭthar, Latin ūber, Germanic (English) udder. Again, Indo-Aryan is the common factor.

[Significantly, the "Near Eastern migratory term" taurus borrowed from Semitic referred to by Gamkrelidze is missing in the three eastern branches (Indo-Aryan, Iranian and Tocharian) but found in all the other western branches, indicating that it was a non-IE word borrowed by the west-emigrating branches as they passed through the Semitic areas].

 

While the pastoral nature of PIE and Rigvedic cultures are recognized, the AIT version not only ignores the fact that the Harappan culture was also a pastoral culture, but actually makes the blatantly false claim that it was not pastoral, and that this proves the difference between the Rigvedic and Harappan cultures! As an article in the Hindu points out"“When we talk about Harappans, we always refer to the metropolitan cities and the big towns. But we have no idea of the parallel economy — agro-pastoral or rural. We know they had great urban planning, trading systems, jewellery making. But we don't have any idea how the common masters were living during the Harappan times, their lifestyle and how they were contributing in the larger network,” explains Prabodh Shirvalkar, from the Department of Ancient Indian History, Culture and Archaeology at the Deccan College Postgraduate and Research Institute, Pune. He is one of the authors of the papers published in Scientific Reports. [….] “The Harappans did not just use dairy for their household. The large herd indicates that milk was produced in surplus so that it could be exchanged and there could have been some kind of trade between settlements. This could have given rise to an industrial level of dairy exploitation,” adds Dr. Chakraborty." (PACHA 2020).

Actually, the Harappans were one of two ancient people who domesticated cattle:

There are "two centers of domestication" of the cow (i.e. of domestic cattle), and this is not the subject of any dispute. The wikipedia article on "Cattle" unambiguously tells us: "Archeozoological and genetic data indicate that cattle were first domesticated from wild aurochs (Bos primigenius) approximately 10,500 years ago. There were two major areas of domestication: one in the area that is now Turkey, giving rise to the taurine line, and a second in the area that is now Pakistan, resulting in the indicine line [….] European cattle are largely descended from the taurine lineage". All other academic sources regularly point out that "the Indus Valley Civilization" was one of the two centers of domestication of cattle!

It is therefore a grave travesty and fraud to claim that the Harappan culture, which actually domesticated one of the two major species of domesticated cattle in the world was not pastoral. It definitely was pastoral, and this constitutes the most striking point of identity between the Harappan and Rigvedic cultures.

 

2. The common species of cattle:

But then, was it a case of one "pastoral" culture, the Rigvedic culture, invading (or immigrating into the areas of) another different "pastoral" culture, the Harappan culture? If so, we should find two varieties of traditional cattle in India: the indigenous "indicine line" of cattle domesticated by the Harappans, and the different "taurine line" of cattle brought in by the very prolifically pastoral "Vedic Indo-Aryans". However, the fact is that, till modern colonial times, all the cattle in India have only belonged to the single "indicine line" of domesticated cattle.

If this fact is to be interpreted within the AIT, it should mean that the "Indo-Aryans" migrated all the way from the Steppes to India over a period of centuries as a "pastoral people", alone (among all the branches) carrying with them the entire PIE pastoral vocabulary, with all its mythic elements and imagery, but they did not have any cattle with them at all. By a strange coincidence, they landed up in the very area of domestication of a different (from the variety of cattle known to them in the Steppes) species of domesticated cattle, and thereby reclaimed their Steppe pastoral heritage with the help of these indicine cattle — so conveniently domesticated for them by the Harappans only to provide these immigrants with a readymade pastoral environment (reminiscent of the Steppes they had left far behind them in the distant past) so that they did not feel like strangers in a foreign land! Or, of course, it could be that they did bring the taurine cattle with them, but they liked the local indicine cattle so much that they killed off all their own taurine cattle and completely destroyed all traces of them, and then transferred their pastoral loyalties to the cattle domesticated by the Harappans!

Obviously, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that the people (the Harappans) who domesticated these indicine (zebu) cattle in the northwest of India, and the Rigvedic Aryans who developed such a very "pastoral" culture on the basis of these very indicine cattle of northwestern India, were broadly one and the same. And the same goes for the Proto-Indo-Europeans, whose culture, reconstructed on the basis of the common elements in all the branches, was the very same "pastoral" culture of the Rigveda in an earlier period.

The evidence of the Harappan cattle goes even farther in establishing the validity of the OIT: while the taurine cattle of the west appear in India only in colonial and modern times, the emigration of the indicine cattle (obviously along with Indo-European speakers migrating out of India) is being established by more and more scholarly studies: recent scientific genetic studies of cattle have confirmed that the Indian humped zebu cattle, domesticated in the Harappan area since thousands of years, suddenly started appearing in West Asia as well as Central Asia around 2200 BCE, and by 2000 BCE there was largescale mixing of the Indian zebu cattle, bos indicus, with the genetically distinct western species of cattle, bos taurus, in West Asia.

https://science.sciencemag.org/content/365/6449/173  

Clearly the evidence from genetic studies of the presence and spread of domesticated cattle completely negates the AIT scenario, and at the same time emphatically confirms the OIT scenario. The expansion westwards of the Anu tribes (including the proto-Iranian speakers) is recorded in the Rigveda, and, as we have shown earlier, the Mitanni people also migrated to West Asia during that period, which characterizes the appearance not only of the indicine Harappan cattle but also of the Indian elephant and the Indian peacock in West Asia.

 

II.C. Cattle and Lactase Persistence:

And now here again we see that same tactic that we repeatedly see in any and every debate involving Hindu issues: the tactic of a factor which goes against the anti-Hindu side being confidently presented as if it goes against the Hindu side, clearly on the principle that "the best form of defense is attack": here we see the  phenomenon of lactose-tolerance/intolerance in different parts of India being presented as if it proves the AIT when it actually proves the OIT.

Tony Joseph confidently presents this argument in his book: "a gene mutation called 13910T which originated in Europe some 7500 years ago. This gene allows the human body to digest milk beyond infancy, into adulthood […] most Indians who have the ability to consume milk as adults carry this European version […] A countrywide screening of DNA samples from all major language groups and regions of India to answer questions about lactase persistence (the technical term for the ability to digest milk after infancy) came to many conclusions, three of which are as follows: first, its distribution in India follows a general north-west to south-east declining pattern. Second, the mutation is identical to the European one. Third, only about a fifth of Indians can digest milk into adulthood, with people in western and northern India being the most likely to do so. The frequency of the gene ranges from over 40% in certain parts of western and northern India to less than 1 per cent in parts of north-east India" (JOSEPH 2018:218).

This brings up discussion on two points:

1. Did the gene mutation 13910T (which enables lactase persistence) originate in Europe and then spread to India?

2. Is lactose tolerance (or more properly, lactase persistence) in any way associated with the AIT?

 

A detailed study of the distribution of lactase persistence due to a mutation -13910 C>T accepts that the mutation resulting in lactase persistence in both Europe and India points to a "single shared origin", but concedes that the spread of this mutation from India to Europe is as much an explanation for this as a spread from Europe to India: "Short- and long-range haplotype data point strongly toward a single shared origin of the -13910 C>T mutation in Europe and India (fig. 3). Given the distribution of the -13910*T allele, the observed degree of haplotype conservation indicates a recent origin followed by a rapid rise in frequency, most likely driven by strong positive selection. There are three a priori scenarios that could explain this sharing: 1) The LRH originated somewhere in south Asia and spread westward; 2) the LRH originated in Europe and spread to India either through the Near East or the Central Asian steppe; and 3) the initial sweep that led to the establishment of the LRH occurred neither in Europe nor India but somewhere in between, either in the Central Asian steppe or in the Fertile Crescent, and spread both east and west from there. It is commonly held that -13910*T and its associated phenotype only became truly advantageous following the domestication of cattle and the adoption of a dairying culture (Simoons 1970a; McCracken1971, Durham 1991)" (ROMERO 2013:256).

However, they moot their opinion that they find the spread from Europe to India as more likely only on the basis of earlier occurrence of this mutation in Europe: "Comparison of the European and Indian history of cattle keeping suggests that the context for the selective sweep was in place in Europe roughly 2,000 years earlier than in south Asia (Copley et al. 2003; Copley, Berstan, Dudd, etal.2005; Copley, Berstan, Mukherjee, etal. 2005; Evershed et al. 2008; Balaresque et al. 2010)" (ROMERO 2013:256).

But:

a) they also accept that "The earliest evidence of cattle herding in south Asia comes from the Indus River Valley site of Mehrgarh and is dated to ~7,000 YBP (Meadow 1993)" (ROMERO 2013:256), and

b) even while arguing that "It is therefore plausible that from Europe, the allele subsequently spread into Central Asia, the Near East, Pakistan, and India", they add the rider: "although not  necessarily by the same route or the same demographic event. If the -13910*T allele was introduced into south Asia from the west, the question arises as to whether this introduction was part of a major migratory event or a minor gene flow event potentially followed by a selective sweep within the subcontinent" (ROMERO 2013:256).

c) And it must be noted that this presumptuous linking of the mutation (resulting in lactase persistence) in India with its earlier occurrence in Europe does not seem to register the fact that cattle were not domesticated in Europe, but in the "fertile crescent" of West Asia and in the Indus Valley: "domestication of cattle is thought to have occurred on two or three occasions, giving rise to the taurine (Bos taurus) and indicine (Bos indicus) species that share the aurochs (Bos primigenius) as common ancestor ~250,000 years ago. Indicine and taurine cattle were domesticated in the Indus Valley and Fertile Crescent, respectively; however, an additional domestication event for taurine in the Western Desert of Egypt has also been proposed", and from here they dispersed "after their domestication northwest from the Fertile Crescent through Turkey into the Balkans and into northern Italy, either following a Mediterranean coastline or a route partially along the Danube River, and subsequently dispersing across Europe." (PITT 2019).

 

But the crux of the matter is that even if it is accepted that this mutation which results in lactase persistence spread from Europe to India, this "spread" took place around 5000 BCE or so, when the indicine cattle were domesticated by the Harappans, and long before any alleged arrival of "Aryans" after 2000 BCE as per the AIT, and was not necessarily (even at that earlier date) "part of a major migratory event" (of some other proposed immigrants, other than "Aryans") but probably "a minor gene flow event potentially followed by a selective sweep within the subcontinent". So this lactase persistence, in any case, was present in the Harappan areas from 5000 BCE at least, and was not spread into India by any "pastoral Aryans" from the Steppes in 2000 BCE.

And the evidence of lactase persistence in India proves the OIT and disproves the AIT:

1. The following is a map (ROMERO 2013:253) directly showing the levels of lactase persistence in India: the areas marked green and yellow have high levels of lactase persistence, while those marked in blue have low levels. Note that the map, which represents the levels of lactase persistence in India today (and not in Harappan times) almost directly presents us with a map (in yellow and green) of the areas covered by the Harappan sites in the days of the Harappan civilization. In short, the areas which must have had lactase persistence in those days (the areas of the Harappans who had domesticated the zebu or indicine cattle) are exactly the same as the areas which have lactase persistence today, i.e. roughly the same people occupy those areas today whose ancestors occupied them in the days of the Harappan civilization. This is incompatible with the AIT scenario.

 

2. As per the AIT, the "Indo-Aryans" entered into the northwest through Central Asia after 2000 BCE, and displaced the Harappans, who spread out into the interior areas and particularly into the South. If so, the Harappans, the domesticators and breeders of the indicine cattle since at least 5000 BCE, were definitely high in lactase persistence, and, if it is true that they migrated to the interior areas and particularly into the South, then the Dravidian speakers in the South should also have been high in lactase persistence. However this is not so: the Dravidian speakers in the South are low in lactase persistence, and cannot have migrated from the indicine-cattle-breeding from the Harappan areas, and must by and large have always been people of the South.

As per the OIT, the Rigvedic Aryans (whose language and literature are totally suffused in pastoral terminology and imagery) were part of the indigenous  Harappan culture — its eastern part — and there was no major migration from the Harappan areas into the interior or the South (beyond normal migrations of local people which must have taken place from any part of India to any other part in any period). So the presence of high lactase persistence even today mainly in the former Harappan-Rigvedic areas, but not in the interior areas and the South, is the expected and normal phenomenon in an OIT scenario.

In short, the concentration of high lactase persistence in the northwestern parts of India, in spite of the fact that the whole of India is a milk-consuming society, gives strong testimony to the comparative stability of the population all over India from Harappan times, to the presence of Dravidian speakers in the South since at least those same Harappan times, and to the identity between the Harappan and Rigvedic civilizations.

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

GAMKRELIDZE 1995: Indo-European and the Indo-Europeans: A Reconstruction and Historical Analysis of a Proto-Language and a Proto-Culture. Gamkrelidze, Thomas V. and Ivanov, V.V. Mouton de Gruyter, 1995, Berlin, New York.

JOSEPH 2018: Early Indians. Joseph, Tony. Juggernaut Books, New Delhi, 2018.

LAL 2009: How Deep are the Roots of Indian Civilization? Archaeology Answers. Lal, B.B., Aryan Books International, 2009.

LAL 2015: The Ṛigvedic People: 'Invaders'?/'Immigrants'? or Indigenous? Lal, B.B., Aryan Books International, 2015.

PROFERES 1999: The Formation of Vedic Liturgies. Proferes, Theodore. Harvard Thesis, April 1999.

PROFERES 2003: Remarks on the Transition from Rgvedic Composition to Srauta Compilation. Proferes, Theodore. In “Indo-Iranian Language and Peoples”, Oxford University Press, Proceedings of the British Academy.

REICH 2018: The Genomic Formation of South and Central Asia. Reich, et al, bioRxiv preprint, March 2018.

ROMERO 2013: Herders of Indian and European Share Their Predominant Allele for Lactase Persistence. Romero et al, Molecular Biology and Evolution, August 2011, pp.249-260.

PACHA 2020: Evidence of Dairy Production in the Indus Valley Civilization. Pacha, Asvathi. The Hindu, 24/10/2020.

PITT 2019: Domestication of Cattle: Two or Three Events? Pitt et al, in Evolutionary Applications (Wiley Online Library), 2019.

WITZEL 1995a: Early Indian History: Linguistic and Textual Parameters. Witzel. Michael.  pp. 85-125 in “The Indo-Aryans of Ancient South Asia”, ed. by George Erdosy. Walter de Gruyter. Berlin, 1995.

WITZEL 1995b: Rgvedic History: Poets, Chieftains and Politics. Witzel, Michael. pp. 307-352 in “The Indo-Aryans of Ancient South Asia”, ed. by George Erdosy. Walter de Gruyter. Berlin.

WITZEL 1997b: The Development of the Vedic Canon and Its Schools: The Social and Political Milieu. Witzel, Michael. in “Inside the Texts, Beyond the Texts”, ed. by M.Witzel, Cambridge 1997 (being the proceedings of the International Vedic Workshop, Harvard univ., June 1989).

WITZEL 2000a: The Languages of Harappa. Witzel, Michael. Feb. 17, 2000.

WITZEL 2006: Central Asian Roots and Acculturation in South Asia: Linguistic and Archaelogical Evidence from Western Central Asia, the Hindukush and Northwestern South Asia for Early Indo-Aryan Language and Religion. in “Indus Civilization: Text and Context”, edited by Toshiki Osada, Manohar Publications, New Delhi, 2006.