Excavations Show the Cultural Continuity of the Vedic Harappans

Excavations in ever more Harappan cities have confirmed the emerging picture of full cultural continuity with early Neolithic as well as with later Hindu society.

Nonagenarian archaeologist B.B.Lal has synthesized his findings of the latest decades in the book The Rigvedic People: Invaders/Immigrants or Indigenous (Aryan Books, Delhi 2015). In it, he seeks to answer three questions: (1) did the Vedic Aryans originate outside India? (2) Did the Harappan civilization originate outside India? (3) Were the Harappans Vedic Aryans?

We need not maintain the suspense; his answers are very straightforward. There is no sign of a foreign origin of either the Indus-Saraswati civilization or the Vedic Aryans.

Indeed, recent excavations in Kunal and Bhirrana have pointedly confirmed an already existing impression of civilizational continuity since the 6th millennium BC. Neither has anything “proto-Harappan” been found in Mesopotamia or anywhere else outside India, of which the typically Harappan lifestyle could have descended.

Moreover, the area known to the Vedic Aryans and described in the youngest layer of the Rig-Veda (10:75:5-6) reaches from the Ganga to the Western tributaries of the Sindhu, thus coinciding with the Harappan territory (minus its Gujarati borderland).In earlier layers, the Vedic heartland is already on the then-mighty Saraswati river in Haryana, exactly where the highest concentration of Harappan settlements is found. Finally, Lal’s spade has never bumped into any trace of Aryans penetrating India.

Painted Grey Ware

Especially in his case, this latter fact is remarkable. It was he who, as a young archaeologist in the 1950s, made his name by finally digging up the long-awaited proof of an Aryan invasion. He had identified a pottery style, the Painted Grey Ware (1200-800), as typifying the Aryans penetrating deeper into India. That is what was taught to us in university, and even recently-published books upholding the Aryan Invasion Theory cite this finding as “proof”.

But Lal himself has grown away from it. At the time, he had simply applied the reigning invasionist framework, until he understood that this was but a hypothetical construct unsupported by hard findings.

Linguistic-archaeological Disconnect

Sketching the earlier Homeland theories, Lal notes that in the late 18th century, India itself became the first preferred Homeland, but was discarded in the early 19th century. All in all, he takes a rather skeptical view of this Homeland search, as do some of the Western Homeland searchers themselves.

“The latest” among the Homeland theories is said to be the one by Johanna Nichols (1997): “She holds that the dispersal of the Indo-European languages commenced from a region somewhere in the vicinity of ancient Bactria-Sogdiana, thus bringing the scenario closer to the Indian subcontinent, but not quite there.”(p.6)

As a philologist, I may be forgiven for doing some nitpicking here: the Bactria region is not her innovation as a Homeland candidate. It has been in the running for two hundred years, but was discarded in the course of the 20th century in favour of the Pontic steppe area. But then she revived it with newer linguistic arguments. She did her work in ignorance of the archeological findings on which Lal relies to push the Homeland even farther east, into India.

Similarly, Lal asserts: “However, an important postulate in Nichols’ thesis is that it was only the language that got dispersed and not the people.” (p.6) This needs some explaining.

Indian critics of the Aryan Invasion Theory easily lapse into fulminations against the racial interpretation of the Indo-European dispersal. This tends to raise smiles (or worse) among Western specialists, because they discarded this interpretation ca. 1945, all while confidently maintaining a more westerly Homeland than India.

They have faced the proven fact that languages can cross racial frontiers, e.g. Jamaicans are predominantly Black even though they speak the language imparted to them by the White Britons; Turks are European-looking through many generations of capture or enslavement of White women, even though their ancestors in Western Mongolia were (and fellow Turkic tribes like the Kirghiz and the Yakut still are) Mongoloid.

So, the Indo-European language too may have changed races. Indeed, it certainly has: either it started among Europeans and was adopted, through a very minoritarian migration, by differently-looking Indians (that would be the invasion theory), or else it was originally spoken by Indians and adopted by Europeans. For Nichols and her colleagues, this was already a given, and she did not have to contend with a theory that Indo-Europeans, all while migrating, retained their race without admixture. But she did privilege the linguistic evidence because that has persisted through the centuries and is available as a living remnant of ancient migrations.

Anyway, there is a slightly defective understanding among archaeologists of what linguists are busy with. And the reverse is also true. The findings that, to Lal, form such clinching evidence for an Indian Homeland, are mostly not even known by Western linguists (the main support base of the belief in a westerly Homeland), and at any rate their relevance to the whole debate is little understood.

They might, however, start to see the point by studying the European part of Indo-European archaeology. Around 2900 BCE, Central Europe witnessed an enormous upheaval caused by an invasion from the east, easily traceble in the material record, and a partial population replacement, now traceable with the new science of genetics.

So that is what an Aryan invasion looks like.

And that precisely is what is totally missing in the archaeological record of India. As robustly as the Aryan invasion of Europe has been proven, as conspicuously absent is the evidence for an Aryan invasion of India.


Lal shows how the assumption of a non-Aryan identity for the Harappan Civilization in the 1920s followed from the chronology established (in spite of his later doubts about it) by Friedrich Max Müller.

B. B. Lal


Max Muller had put the first Vedic hymns as late as 1200 BC, centuries after the demise of the Harappan cities. As a consequence, for almost a century, we have had to sail upstream against the non-Vedic and non-Aryan paradigm of the Harappan civilization. But his chronology was completely arbitrary, even though it is still commonly followed.

Like Umapada Sen and Shrikant Talageri, Lal dates the Rg-Veda mostly to the 3rd millennium BCE. This is one or two millennia earlier than in Max Müller’s account, but more moderate and sober than the ages or eternities proposed by some zealous Hindu scripturalists.

Reply to Critics

As some points had been made by Lal in earlier publications, the opposite camp has tried to refute these. Unlike the many would-be decipherers of the Harappan script, who have smugly installed themselves in their own pretended solution and not taken account of criticisms or rival decipherments, Lal does take issue with his critics.

He opposes the attempts to understand the “Bactria-Margiana Archaeological Complex” (BMAC) as a settlement of pre-Vedic Indo-Aryans on the way from Russia to India. (p.26-33-) Thus, he mentions Viktor Sarianidi as citing a bas-relief found in Bactria from some 2000 BCE and relating it to objects found in Mitanni (Syria), where the local Hurrian language in 1500 BCE contained many Sanskrit words.

Lal correctly remarks that this does not prove they were ancestral to the (India-based) “Vedic Aryans”, whom the invasion theory assumes to be more recent than the Mitanni Aryans. But it does prove (or at least indicate) something else: that the Bactrian culture was ancestral to the Mitanni culture. As per Sarianidi’s own evidence, an east-to-west migration from Bactria to Mitanni is indicated. And this may have been the second leg of a migration beginning in India.

Similarly, Lal opposes a claim made by the late Gregory Possehl that a horse find in Bactria indicates a Vedic horse sacrifice, performed by Aryans on their way to India. He points out that the horse was beheaded and thus does not satisfy the Vedic prescriptions for a horse sacrifice.

We remark that there was no need for being so defensive: for argument’s sake, just let this horse be a Vedic sacrificial victim. Since the Rg-Veda was composed in the 3rd millennium (and not in 1200 BCE as Possehl assumed), earlier than this Bactrian horse, it only confirms an India-to-Bactria migration, not the other way around.

Speaking of horses, it is widely claimed that the Sindhu-Saraswati Civilization could not have been Vedic because it lacked the Vedic glamour animal, the horse. Admittedly, the horse remains are few in number — as they were in later, definitely Aryan cities such as Hastinapura, and even in the BMAC, where horses are native. Yet, they did exist, both in depictions and in reality. Apart from mentioning Lothal and Mohenjo Daro, Lal goes through the evidence for horse bones from Surkutada, certified by the Hungarian horse specialist Sándor Bökönyi,

Likewise it is often claimed that there were no spoked wheels in Harappa, though they make their appearance halfway through the Rg-Veda (as Talageri has shown). True, India’s hot and humid climate is not conducive to the preservation of wooden implements, but a number of terracotta models of the same spoked wheel have been dug up.

Finally, Lal’s claim that the excavated “fire altars”, of the kind Vedic priests used for fire ceremonies, has been ridiculed in the West. A typical Hindu mysitification when obviously these are just kitchen hearths, so they said. Therefore, Lal quotes a leading Western archaeologist, the late Raymond Allchin, as confirming the ritual purpose of these fire-pits. He also takes the trouble of showing in detail why these cannot be kitchen hearths. Among non-technical reasons, he highlights a finding of fire-altars where a genuine cooking hearth stood close by, as if to demonstrate the  difference.

Vedic Harappa

The continuity of the Harappan civilization is expressed in many ways. Several findings confirm the presence of Shiva in Harappa: lingam-yoni motifs are associated with a male figure seated in meditation posture, the same figure is the addressee of a bull sacrifice, and two attributes of Shiva are found together: a bull with a trident engraved on his hip.Ascetics are found depicted as sitting in Bhadrâsana (noble pose), Vajrâsana (diamond pose) or Siddhâsana (yogi pose).

There is also a depiction of a well-known Hindu fable: The Thirsty Crow. A deer could not drink from a narrow pitcher, but a crow could stick its beak in. When the water was still too low, it dropped stones into the pitcher so the water level rose, and he could drink.

Statuettes show the Namaste salute with folded hands. Married women are shown wearing red powder in the parting of their hair, like their modern granddaughters. The Harappan ladies wore spiraled bangles and other cosmetic gadgetry that is still in use today.

Concludes the dean of Indian archaeology: “So, it is abundantly clear that all the objections against a Harappan-Vedic equation are baseless.”(p.151) Indeed, “the Harappan civilization and the Vedas are but two faces of the same coin.” (p.123)

Finishing the Aryan Homeland Debate

In the last fifteen years, two heady developments have made the westerly Homeland hard to sustain. Philological work, mainly by Talageri and by the Greek Sanskrit professor Nicholas Kazanas, has given flesh to an Indian Homeland framework and traced it deeper in ancient Indian literature. The new genetic approach has discovered new proof for westward migrations from India.

The archaeological progress has been slower but no less spectacular. Though not given the proper publicity outside India, excavations in ever more Harappan cities have confirmed the emerging picture of full cultural continuity with early Neolithic as well as with later Hindu society. None of Lal’s colleagues has discovered the long-awaited trace of an invasion.

We ought to be happy that a synthesis of the archaeological arguments against the Aryan invasion has now been published. B.B. Lal’s life work has earned him a memorable place in history. After he had first discovered pillar-bases of the demolished Rama temple in Ayodhya, he was ridiculed and denounced as “Hindu fundamentalist”. Then, when he shifted from the invasionist to the “Vedic Harappa” position, he was denounced as that “known propagator of the non-existent temple”.

Yet, later Court-ordered excavations laid bare the entire foundation of the temple, proving him right. Likewise, new findings confirm his stand on the Vedic Sindhi-Saraswati civilization.

  • Bhaskar

    This is a mindless debate, as huge layer upon layer of migrations have taken place from outside what is known as the subcontinent today and within the territory of present day India. In reality, if you see the features of the present day people of the middle east and Iran and then come southwards to north India and go gradually south, you will see a lot of similarities and then differences as you go south. At the risk of being politically incorrect, body and facial features and skin color are also important, as important as the Vedic use of Varna and present day obsession with fair skin. With regard to internal migration, in the deep south the Brahmins generally are light skinned (example Yamini Krishnamuthy). If one sees the sculpture on rock in Mahabalipuram (Mamallapuram), you see facial features that are from the north and completely alien to the features of the dominant local populace. There are therefore many layers of successive migration from outside and within India that we see in the north and then to a lesser extent in the south and this had the effect of sankritising the ancient Dravidan language (which predates Sanskrit). Finally, one sees that the modern Lithuanian language is the closest to spoken Sanskrit a you find anywhere in the world. So the whole debate is not so cut and dry, black and white as it is being made out to be. Further there is a distinct political element, first by non-Brahmin immigrants to USA refuting the AIT (rejected by universities like Harvard), and now by the RSS elements. Finally, given the recent history of invasions into India (the last thousand years) it should be pretty evident that people wanted to come towards the fertile Gangetic areas of India and not the other way around (exception — the Jat migration of the Romano Gypsies to Europe) and that is why it became so densely populated. Simple logic – more people migrate to fertile arable areas than those wanting to go towards the desert.

    • Hindu

      Your Simple logic is incorrect sir. Facial features mean not much. Please go through the
      1. DNA evidence
      2. Shrikant Talageri Linguistic evidence
      3. Archaelogical evidence
      4. Internal astronomical/astrological evidence in the scriptures

      All point to the origins in India..India was much bigger than what the map shows today.

  • Mohan Iyengar

    Excellent article. Well summarised.

  • Anfauglir

    Similarly, Lal asserts: “However, an important postulate in Nichols’ thesis is that it was only the language that got dispersed and not the people.” (p.6) This needs some explaining.

    Indian critics of the Aryan Invasion Theory easily lapse into fulminations against the racial interpretation of the Indo-European dispersal. This tends to raise smiles (or worse) among Western specialists, because they discarded this interpretation ca. 1945, all while confidently maintaining a more westerly Homeland than India.

    Disingenuous to insinuate that it’s Hindu (incl. nationalist) paranoia that the west until far more recently than 1945 insisted that–where Indo-Europeanism in non-“white” space was concerned–genes and language travelled together and hence “invaded” India. The west factually held to this notion for well after 1945.

    Frank Raymond Allchin in 1995 stated the following as quoted by Vishal Agarwal:

    we hold the view that the initial introduction of any ancient language to a new area can only have been a result of the movement of speakers of that language into that area.

    This allegedly unavoidable connection between genes and (Indo-European) language was overturned only comparatively recently and only for the reason that Indo-Europeanists could not prove any largescale invasion or even migration of Europeans into India.
    To protect themselves from any reverse claims, the west then jumped to the position that in India (and thereabouts) the presence of the so-called Indo-European languages does not need to go hand in hand with genes.

    This discrepancy between western expectation and their being forced to conclude the opposite was in fact sufficient a revelation to the west that, as late as 2006, National Geographic saw fit to expend a whole headline in heralding this very changeover in thinking (albeit a necessitated one):

    India Acquired Language, Not Genes, From West, Study Says
    Most modern Indians descended from South Asians, not invading Central Asian steppe dwellers, a new genetic study reports.

    (As seen in the very title, the west of course won’t let go of the language claims.)

    Lal is therefore actually justified in drawing Indic readers’ attention to Nichols’ statement. Though the latter’s observation has ceased to be novel since this last decade, it nevertheless does state something that negates a long-held western view–at least where India to Iran were concerned–which the west only involuntarily relinquished relatively recently. Though, really, there is the case of the Baltic states that’s been staring Indo-Europeanists in the face: with the Finno-Ugric speaking Estonians vs their genetically close yet “Indo-European” speaking Latvian and Lithuanian relatives next door. As per genetic studies, the Estonians are genetically more related to the other Baltics, as well as to Poles, Russians, Belarussians (and hence Ukrainians, of steppe fame)–all “Indo-European” speaking–than to their fellow Finnic speaking Finns. Whatever conclusion the Indo-Europeanists choose to draw about this–whether they resort to more grand storytelling to explain away the obvious inconsistencies–the long-held Indo-Europeanist assumption that language and genes ought to go together where Indo-European languages (and especially India and Iran) were concerned, was clearly not uniformly applied to nations in the European heartland and closer to Ukraine’s steppes than India and Iran.

    Of course, with the publication of the paper about the “massive migration” (from the steppes)–a migration that’s then been associated with what has since formed 2/3rds of modern Europe’s male genetic lineages, significantly replacing much of Europe’s original male ancestry–the genes are instantly linked back to languages:
    (Note that the reference to “east” is merely to Russia and Ukraine. That is, east of the Catholic and WASP heartland.)


    Mar 2015
    Europe’s Languages Were Carried From the East, DNA Shows
    The new settlers, revealed by a genetic analysis, may solve a mystery swirling around the origins of Indo-European languages.

    New DNA evidence suggests that herders from the grasslands of today’s Russia and Ukraine carried the roots of modern European languages across the continent some 4,500 years ago.

    So who says that Indo-Europeanists do not still readily leap to tie language and genes together if they can tell grand tales about Indo-Europeanism being European/”white”, but will dissolve any connection between language and genes when they can’t claim India genetically (finding no detectible invasion or migration) yet still need to claim India’s “Indo-European” languages? At least the above article’s final paragraphs admit that it doesn’t follow from the study that the Ukrainian/Russian steppes must be the fabled “Indo-European homeland”.

    The source for the National Geographic article is the paper “Massive migration from the steppe was a source for Indo-European languages” which is another case in point of Indo-Europeanists ever poised to tie language dispersal with genetic/population (actually specifically racial) dispersal where it favours their novel vision of history. This despite the fact that DNA doesn’t say anything about languages, but this has never held back Indo-Europeanists and their storytelling that invariably converges–with predetermination–on one point within the ‘history’ they keep constructing.

    That massive migration from the steppes was simply assumed to be the explanation behind another genetics paper’s finding (already mentioned): of how 2/3rds of the rest of Europe’s male lineages had been replaced during a time bracket that included this migration period. Despite the omission of the Balkans and the steppes in the genetics samples (both omissions are interesting), what’s more interesting is that these replacement male lineages had proceeded to genetically invade Hungary far more successfully than Greece. So Hungary has a significant amount of the genes of the people who are credited with bringing the Indo-European languages into the rest of Europe. Yet the genetics samples for Greece, a European cornerstone for a civilisation and language dubbed “Indo-European”, show far lower frequencies of the genetic lineages that were to have brought the Indo-European languages there than Hungary. Going by memory of what I understood: in the Greek genetic samples, the lineages purportedly originating in the steppes were furthermore in the minority, and even some of that as detected was dated older than the massive migration from the steppes (meaning it already existed in Greece well before the steppe invaders, and even before the Kurgan thesis’ date for Proto-Indo-European itself, I think). These little details are inconsistent with the conclusion evident in the very title of the massive migration paper that decided that Indo-European languages were introduced into more western Europe from the steppes (along with a migration of genes that brought them) around 4500 years ago.

    The massive migration paper has none other than David Anthony among its authorship. Anthony is a very influential person in guiding the repeatedly resurrected Kurgan theory to popularity and victory over its competitors. He wrote the work of pop-Indo-Europeanism called “The Horse, the Wheel and Language: How Bronze-Age Riders from the Eurasian Steppes Shaped the Modern World”, and which romantic (here a euphemism for supremacist) title indicates his prodigious interest in the storytelling surrounding the genetics and other vanilla data. Note that his book title also ties the dispersal of people (i.e. genes) with Indo-European language, and he thereafter worked on the massive steppe migration genetics paper. The discussion about Indo-European languages is invariably about genes and hence about “race”, even if the advocates are careful to make it less explicit nowadays. It’s also about Indo-European supremacism–see the grandiose title of Anthony’s book–hence racist. And this is all mainstream Indo-Europeanist discourse. It’s not western specialists that need to smile at Hindus “misinterpreting” them and their motives. The former’s motives are rather transparent.

    Relevant to heathen Hindus is that Anthony–in his influential Indo-Europeanist theorising–has brought about an upheaval in conventional Indo-Europeanism by concluding that Indra is not actually “Indo-European” at all, but was a borrowed non-“Indo-European” deity who was actually local (native) to somewhere within the meeting place of the Indian-Iranian zone; thereby implying that at least 1/4th of the Rig Veda (which quarter is said to involve Indra) is not merely locally composed but in honour of a non-“Indo-European” deity what’s more. This may curtail the entertaining tales by world mythologists and Indo-Europeanists equating Thor with Indra–as only people who care about neither God would do–and racist foreigners deciding that Indra is actually their ancestral God or in any way related to them, all because of Indo-Europeanist excuses. Even Anthony has his uses.

    • Anfauglir

      To be more explicit about certain allusions made in the above:

      It has been claimed for the alleged Indo-European dispersal that this was accompanied and facilitated by significant (Indo-European) innovation that made the language group receive widespread adoption in the originally non-Indo-European speaking European heartland. The innovations range from some farming matters (as per the Anatolian thesis) or the horse, wheel & hence carriage/chariot, and/or metallurgy, even the notion of law (!), and/or other further “civilisational” innovations. Besides distinguishing language and “mythology”.

      A chunk of the Finno-Ugric language group was to have been not only native to Europe but its centre was to have been more to the south than at present (where Finnic now mainly exists in the northern fringes) and this centre was to have been displaced by the incoming Indo-European invasion. The notion was that the “Indo-European” innovations introduced were compelling enough for the remaining natives to adopt the language.

      So by this logic internal to Indo-Europeanist thinking, Estonia was to have been speaking a native European language still, while their neighbours were to have been converted to Indo-Europeanism. So then, on account of the view of population replacement (significant genetic replacement), their Baltic neighbours of Lithuania and Latvia were to have been affected and the Estonians not so much.

      Yet, in a turn that seems to have surprised at least some Europeans, the Estonians have been found to be rather related genetically to their Indo-European speaking neighbours from the Baltics to even the neighbouring Slavic nations.
      This invariably brings up the question of whether the distinguishing genetics of these populations is actually tied to the Indo-European language group at all, since they don’t uniformly speak it, considering the Estonians are a glaring exception.

      However, the same does not necessarily or equally question whether Finnic is native to the Estonians: Finno-Ugric was not claimed to have spread on account of “innovation” (at least not at this late time of the “Indo-European” dispersal or thereafter). And with the European centre of the Finno-Ugric language group thought to have been further down in the European heartland originally than it is at present and with European populations having shown distinguishing internal genetic diversity since millennia, it is not surprising that Estonians may be more genetically related to their immediate neighbours than to the Finns who likewise retained the native language.

      Thus the abrupt cut off of “Indo-European” language dispersal at Estonia coupled with the fact that the other Baltics and the nearby Russians and Poles are related to them genetically but not language-wise raises the question whether the latter all adopted Indo-European languages (because of alleged compelling “innovations”) and whether the Indo-European languages are not genetically tied to these other people (the Slavs) either, merely that some of them (say from the steppes) introduced a language group that they had adopted somewhat earlier among the remainder of Europe over time, but yet failed to impose it on the Estonians for unknown reasons.

      Couple this with how India exhibits the alleged language group but was said to not have noticeably received the genes that had until recently been hypothesized to go with the language dispersal (as seen again in the aforementioned title of the 2006 National Geographic article “India Acquired Language, Not Genes, From West, Study Says. Most modern Indians descended from South Asians, not invading Central Asian steppe dwellers, a new genetic study reports”.)

      Either Indians are speaking a language not genetically affiliated with them or the concerned Europeans are speaking a language not genetically affiliated with them.
      If the Indo-European languages are natively ancestral to the Slavs–Russians/Belarussians/Ukrainians and Poles, which presumably includes the original steppe dwellers–and to their genetically related Lithuanians and Latvians, then Indo-Europeanists have to hypothesize that Estonians adopted a Finnic language later than the “Indo-European” dispersal in Europe. Whereas if the Estonians are speaking a tongue native to them, then their Indo-European speaking Baltic and Slavic neighbours who are genetic relatives are not speaking a tongue native to them (but adopted the Indo-European language group at some point, perhaps even some time before their ancestors’ genes massively migrated from the steppes into more western, European territory).

      In any case, there seems to be a genetic disconnect between Europe and India/Iran despite the alleged Indo-European language connection. And there’s a linguistic disconnect within Europeans who are genetically related and who harbour genetic lineages that are identified as “Indo-European”. Maybe Indo-Europeanists will resolve the latter by postulating a Hun-like invasion imposing Finnic on the Estonians post Indo-European dispersal. (Still won’t explain the Indian case. But that’s what all their storytelling is for: a new story to cover each circumstance and context.)

      I still place a question mark over how representative modern Ukrainians and western Russians are of the population demographics as it existed in their region long ago: western Russia, Belarus, Ukraine was inundated with Swedes/Vikings in an age after the massive steppe migration (possibly more so than the UK was by the Danes, and western France by the Vikings). That western Scandinavians should now significantly align genetically with modern inhabitants of Ukraine, Belarus and western Russia is hardly a surprise. My question is how much of that specific (call it “Scandinavian”) genetic stuffs in modern northwestern Slavs is thought to have already been present in the steppe before and upon the massive steppe migration. That is, is it a case of an identical/non-distinguishable population invading itself? Alternatively, are Serbians and the like less affected by the Viking migrations seen in these northern Slavic territories and thus more representative of the original steppe genetics? And more questions of this and other nature.

  • seasons

    Our tradition and collective memory never mentions any migration from any foreign land to Sapta Sindhu. However a foreign Homeland for Sanskrit speaking authors of Rigveda was decided to be out of India that too in Caucasus, only on the basis of linguistic. An then it was left to sane researchers to prove otherwise and they have done commendable job of providing answers in terms of academic language . But question remains, why are we subjected to such whimsical theories where the onus of proving the ‘known’ truth is on the other side. This is mockery of genuineness !