ina villagenowknown as
Mehrgarh.Thatdeveloped
intooneof thelargesthab-
itations of theperiodin the
areabetweenthe Indus
andtheMediterranean. At
aroundthistime,Iranian
agriculturists from the
Zagros region arrived
there,whichlednotonlyto
theirmixingwiththe“First
Indians”—thatis,thedes-
cendantsoftheOoAmi-
grants who had settled
there—butalsoto changes
inthecropping pattern.
Geneticists believe that
thistookplaceby4700-
3000 BCE. Barley and
wheatwerecultivatedand
domesticated animals
wereconsumed. Agricul-
tural settlements had
spread allacross north-
westernIndiabynow—in
theIndus andGhaggar-
Hakravalleysaswellasin
Gujarat.Atthesametime,
evidence from
LahuradewainUttarPra-
desh,intheUpper Ganga
plain,shows thatricewas
harvested andlifehadbe-
comesomewhat sedentary
thereby 700 0 BCE.Mehr-
garhwasnotanisolated
case ofexperimentingin
different kinds of
agriculture.
During 5500-260 0
BCE, agricultural settle-
mentsinthenorth-west-
ern part of the
subcontinent developed
into towns with their
uniquestyles.Kalibangan
andRakhigarhiinwhatis
now India and Banwaliand Rahman Dheri in
today’s Pakistan are
among them. Distinct
Early Harappan cultures
suchasSothi,Amriand
Kulli developed in this
process. All these were
subsumedintheprocess,
anda higherlevelof stand-
ardisationevolved, witha
complexscript,seals,pot-
tery, bricks, weights and
measures, andsoon.The
MatureHarappancivilisa-
tionwasborn. Thepeople
who built this complex
civilisationwerea mixture
ofthe“FirstIndians”and
theagriculturistsfromthe
Zagrosmountainsof Iran;
theadmixture hadtaken
placelongbeforethefirst
cities hadcomeup.Inone
sense, it wasauthenticallySouthAsianinasmuchas
theAsians,Americansand
Europeanswerenotany
moreAfricans! Andthey
hadnotraceofAnatolian
ancestry.
It is importantthatthis
genomicconclusionis in-
dependentofanyarchae-
ological or linguistic
correlation.Butthose who
studied Mehrgarh had
comemoreorlesstothe
sameconclusionlongbe-
forethegenomicevidence
wasavailable.Linguistics,
too,pointedtothesame
conclusion.Ofthediffer-
ent Mesopotamian lan-
guages, theonethatthe
IraniansfromZagrosare
likely tohave spokenis
Elamite.Linguisticsimil-
arities between Brahui,
spokenin Baluchistan,and
Elamite havebeenestab-
lished. The kinship of
BrahuiwiththeDravidian
familyof languages is well
known. Thus,it turns out
thatwhat thegeneticstudy
pointstoisexactlywhat
theearlierarchaeological
and philological studies
had suggested: about a
heavy Dravidian content
in theHarappan.
Infact, thisis exactly
what the most modern
work on the Harappan
scripttellsus.AskoPar-
polaandIravathamMa-
hadevan have, in their
independent studies,poin-
tedoutthepossibilityof
thelanguageof theHarap-
pansbeingrelatedtothe
Dravidian. No, neither
claims tohave readthe
language.It is thesystem-
aticstudyof thesigns,their
occurrence, their fre-
quency,patternsof pairing
andthecontext thatled
them tothisconclusion.
The attempts of Aryan/
Sanskrit enthusiasts are
rendered laughable by
thesestudies.ATTHEHARAPPANSITEOFRAKHIGARHIin Haryana, excavationonmoundfour,
RGR-4.The peoplewhobuilttheMatureHarappancivilisationwerea mixtureof the
“FirstIndians”and theagriculturistsfromtheZagrosmountains of Iran whohadarrived
at Mehrgarharound 7000 BCE.
D.KRISHNAN