Rakhigarhi, an archaeological site in Hisar district of Haryana, has been in the news lately. Excavations at the ancient site of Rakhigarhi reveal a number of mounds, dating from pre and early to mature Harappan times (the period for the mature Harappan civilisation is from 2600-1900 BCE). Adding together the size of all the mounds, some archaeologists have termed it the largest ever Harappan site, covering an area of over 350 hectares. However, archaeologists such as Gregory Possehl refute this, suggesting instead that the mounds belong to two different sites, one of them being of the Sothi-Siswal sub-culture (see my earlier article on Harappan sub-cultures).
However, Rakhigarhi is not currently in the news because of its size, but because of the analysis of DNA samples from a Harappan-era grave. On the basis of a preliminary report, the media has jumped to conclusions about whether the Harappans and so-called Aryans were indigenous or not, with some stating that it proves that the Harappans were indigenous, that they had links with Ancestral South Indians, and that those speaking Aryan languages (to reaffirm, there is no, and never has been, any Aryan race), came in later. They then further reach the conclusion that the Harappans spoke a South Indian language. Others in the media have taken it to prove a continuity from Harappan times to the present day.
This, in fact, is the way in which myths are created and perpetuated, and become part of a historical narrative, which though unsubstantiated, continue to be quoted. Why should we not arrive at any conclusions on the basis of the DNA analysis from Rakhigarhi? Well, because while 148 samples were sent, DNA could be extracted from only one, or at most from two. And how can you generalise about the population at Rakhigarhi, leave alone about the entire Harappan civilisation, on the basis of the DNA of a single individual? Was the individual a resident of Rakhigarhi or a migrant? Who knows? In addition, DNA cannot be linked with language, as the evolution and diffusion of languages is complex and not necessarily related to a person’s ancestry.
Here we will look at some problems on conclusions made on the basis of DNA studies. Scientists such as Stephen Gould, Richard Lewontin, Leonard Lieberman and others have argued that race is not a valid method to classify humans, and anthropologists have moved away from categorising people according to race. However, though the term race may not be used, recent studies on genetics, decoding the genome, and Palaeo-analysis of bones, have again brought the question of types of people to the forefront. Such studies have come up with various theories about the ancestry of people in India. Among them are the following:
Richard Fnyrop, 2009, on the basis of genetic analysis suggests that Indians are a mixture of two groups, termed Ancestral North Indians (ANI), and Ancestral South Indians (ASI). ANI, are similar to western Eurasians, including Europeans, and accounts for 40 –80 per cent of the Indian genome; Ancestral South Indians, are not linked with any other group. Today only Andaman islanders have exclusive descent from ASI, the rest are mixed.
David Reich suggests that Dravidians are related to people from the eastern Mediterranean; they are thought to be of the same stock as the people of Asia Minor and Crete, and the pre-Hellenic Greeks (the Aegeans).
Other genetic studies suggest there was no large inflow of genes into India after 10,000 BCE.
Palaeo analysis of bones from graves in the northwest suggests that there were two periods of discontinuity, between 6000 and 4500, and after 800 BCE.
These studies may have some basis, but should not be taken as conclusive. For instance Richard Fynrop’s conclusions have been arrived at with samples of only 132 people, from 25 groups across 13 States; the majority of people selected were tribals or lower castes. Haryana, Punjab, Bihar, Maharashtra, West Bengal, Assam and even Tamil Nadu are among the States totally excluded from this study. Gujarat, Kerala, Karnataka and Madhya Pradesh are represented only by samples from tribal populations. The limited nature of such a study is clear.
Another recent study analyses 362 samples from Iran, Turan, Bronze Age Kazhakstan and South Asia(see The Genomic Formation of South and Central Asia by 92 authors). They believe that their studies show that communities from the Steppes mixed with Iranian agriculturalists and South Asian hunter-gatherers. They call this group ‘Indus Periphery’, as they have not directly analysed any data from Harappan sites, and believe that results show the linkage between Europe and South Asia in the Bronze Age.
Historically, we do know of population movements into India, from 600 BCE onwards, even before the medieval period. Early Persians, Greeks, Parthians, Kushans, Huns and even Sasanians all had a presence in North India.
In addition, there were other migrants too among them traders from several parts of the ancient world, including the Roman empire who settled in India for trade. In fact trade with Iran, Mesopotamia and contiguous regions, dates back to the Harappan period, hence while analysing genes, how does one distinguish between migrants and indigenous people?
These are some of the questions to be raised before reaching conclusions based on the DNA of a single individual from Rakhigarhi.
(A PhD in ancient Indian History, the writer lives in Dehradun and has authored ten books)
