Who Created Harappan / Indus Valley Civilisation? | How Did It End? | Samvaad With Devdutt Pattanaik

[Master Chief]

Nice coolaid you got there. Muh percentage. Hindus in Pakistan live in a hellscape but sure compare them to Buddhists in India. Lol! You use percentage and absolute numbers interchangably when it suits you. Why don't you give the same rights to your minorities as India give to it's. But then it's evident we are polar opposites.

As for Buddhism in India, we didn't co-opt anything. Buddhism was rather a dharmic belief. Even Buddhist themselves says it. It's cute to see a Pakistani of all people trying to pretend to know anything. It's not as easy as cosplaying Indian culture with Kathak dance then saying "it's muh culture." Don't make such embarassing mistakes next time.

Blabber.

Yeah that's why we had to make a point about the Mughals. Defeated them, made them a b***, once disposed their descendants were living as nobodies. Such humiliation is only left for Mughals, rest of the Indian prince and princesses live in a life of richness. Be it Rajputs, Peshwas, Maratha descendants scinthias all of them are influential families, politicians, academics, businessmen, but not Mughals, their descendants well given the number of concubines, marrying ones own sister in laws it's all complicated. Mughal descendants are dime a dozen and we don't know which one is truly a descendant it's funny and sad at the same time.

This is where you lost the plot, you see Bhiranna is not just 7500BCE spot, it was populated from 7500BCE and hence there is evidence of continuous IVC. Mehrgarh is like a bunch of people lived there, great. Proto IVC? could be, or not. You say it is Proto IVC, and you think the 500 year gap is the problem? No, archeologists don't consider it as an IVC site and theorised it could be a precursor. You brought it up as a cope when I mentioned Bhiranna as the oldest site. On top of that India also has the most IVC sites and thus obviously most area of IVC sites. Tell me I'm making this up.

Sir you are 100% making this up!

Pakistan has the HIGHER ABSOLUTE land area of IVC sites (a whopping 100,000sq km more). Apart from absolute terms, in terms of percentage of national land area, there is simply no contest. Sod off to your gangetic civilisation and leave IVC to its true masters.

We have discussed Bhiranna and Mehrgahr at length. Even if you refuse to accept it as IVC proper and regard it as a precursor instead, then this still means Pakistanis are your fathers, despite your protests. So, I don't understand how your point is supposed to initiate any sort of academic debate regarding the origins of the IVC. This civilisation arose in the fertile crescent of the middle east and exported its genome, farming techniques, and urban planning to the wonderment of AASI folk, who were rather simple and rode elephants and howled at the moon and carved pornography into their temples. Mercifully the export was over land, not via any contested Strait.

Archaeologists very much do regard Mehrgahr as a precursor site and this is very important to acknowledge, rather than brushing it under the carpet as is your want. I am certain that if Mehrgahr was located in the wild forests of Nagaland that you would be larping about it for a month without sleeping!

"According to Lukacs and Hemphill, while there is a strong continuity between the neolithic and chalcolithic (copper Age) cultures of Mehrgarh, dental evidence shows that the chalcolithic population did not descend from the neolithic population of Mehrgarh, which "suggests moderate levels of gene flow." They further noted that "the direct lineal descendents of the Neolithic inhabitants of Mehrgarh are to be found to the south and the east of Mehrgarh, in northwestern India and the western edge of the Deccan plateau," "

To reiterate what archaeologists have actually said: there is evidence of DIRECT LINEAL DESCENDANTS from Mehrgahr found to the east in Hindustan.

Again, would you like to repeat some sordid claim of reverse evolution?

Look at the buildings of Mehrgahr:



This was prior to the buildings observed in Mohenjo-Daro and Harappa but deploys the same grid based, lattice like architecture.

Would you like a more medical anf agricultural angle?

"Gallego Romero et al. (2011) further state that their research on lactose tolerance in India suggests that "the west Eurasian genetic contribution identified by Reich et al. (2009) principally reflects gene flow from Iran and the Middle East." Gallego Romero notes that Indians who are lactose-tolerant show a genetic pattern regarding this tolerance which is "characteristic of the common European mutation." According to Romero, this suggests that "the most common lactose tolerance mutation made a two-way migration out of the Middle East less than 10,000 years ago. While the mutation spread across Europe, another explorer must have brought the mutation eastward to India – likely traveling along the coast of the Persian Gulf where other pockets of the same mutation have been found." They further note that "[t]he earliest evidence of cattle herding in south Asia comes from the Indus River Valley site of Mehrgarh and is dated to 7,000 YBP." "

So you see, this animal that makes you belch and fahrt does exactly the same to European populations because of a bidirectional migration of genomic material East and West from a middle eastern origin point.

You have derailed the thread with your ramblings about mughals and marathas and ashoka for long enough. But suffice to say, what you dismiss as "blabber" clearly shatters the fragile illusion you have crafted in your mind of Ashoka being a magnanimous and virtuous individual, worthy of modern reverence and representation on flags and coinage no less! Objectivity matters and the same objective researchers who would declare Mehrgahr to be a key nidus for fertile crescentic civilisational expansion eastwards would also reason that Ashoka was a very cruel man, who reflected the murderous tyranny of the empires of his time. No criticism from me for his behaviour whatsoever! He is part of the heritage of this region, just like everyone else is. He slaughtered many of your dharmic fathers and mothers. So what? Should we remove him from our history syllabi because of that?

 

[Vikramaditya1]

Pakistan has the HIGHER ABSOLUTE land area of IVC sites (a whopping 100,000sq km more). Apart from absolute terms, in terms of percentage of national land area, there is simply no contest. Sod off to your gangetic civilisation and leave IVC to its true masters

Haha you don't. Roughly two thirds are in India. Again you're welcome to fact check me. You can fit both Harappa and Mohenjodaro in Ralhigarhi site. You're seeing this as some emotional battle. But in reality the IVC sites extend to today's Pakistan and Afghanistan from India with India still having the most sites be it total area or simple site area.

We have discussed Bhiranna and Mehrgahr at length. Even if you refuse to accept it as IVC proper and regard it as a precursor instead, then this still means Pakistanis are your fathers, despite your protests. So, I don't understand how your point is supposed to initiate any sort of academic debate regarding the origins of the IVC. This civilisation arose in the fertile crescent of the middle east and exported its genome, farming techniques, and urban planning to the wonderment of AASI folk, who were rather simple and rode elephants and howled at the moon and carved pornography into their temples. Mercifully the export was over land, not via any contested Strait.

It's not my refusal that's the problem a wider Arceologists don't accept them as IVC. As for Pakistan being father, you're an Islamic republic founded by Jinnah and his friends for Muslims of subcon it reject every idea India stands for including it's culture. Idol breakers who pride themselves being one, romanticise it with poems and then go "whaa we wuzz kangs". Rest of your immature low IQ rant is ignored.

Archaeologists very much do regard Mehrgahr as a precursor site and this is very important to acknowledge, rather than brushing it under the carpet as is your want. I am certain that if Mehrgahr was located in the wild forests of Nagaland that you would be larping about it for a month without sleeping!

Very much debatable because older sites in Bhiranna reveal the development was largely localised not migratory. You said if Mehrgarh was part of Nagaland etc... why go that far, your entire country was part of India. So it only make it more obvious.

"According to Lukacs and Hemphill, while there is a strong continuity between the neolithic and chalcolithic (copper Age) cultures of Mehrgarh, dental evidence shows that the chalcolithic population did not descend from the neolithic population of Mehrgarh, which "suggests moderate levels of gene flow." They further noted that "the direct lineal descendents of the Neolithic inhabitants of Mehrgarh are to be found to the south and the east of Mehrgarh, in northwestern India and the western edge of the Deccan plateau," "

You must have a DNA evidence for these lineage theories right? Dental evidence is weakest source for genetic mapping. Mehrgarh is probably a settlement of early farmers but they are not the cradle of IVC.

To reiterate what archaeologists have actually said: there is evidence of DIRECT LINEAL DESCENDANTS from Mehrgahr found to the east in Hindustan.

Again, would you like to repeat some sordid claim of reverse evolution?

Look at the buildings of Mehrgahr:

What I found interesting in your entire argument is somehow Bhiranna site hurts your argument but it actually does ain't it? All these mean nothing when they are not clasified as IVC. These theories you quoted are old when people thought these migrations caused the development of IVC my argument is the mixing causes IVC.

Would you like a more medical anf agricultural angle?

Already lost that plot when we did DNA analysis on Rakhigarhi skeleton half and half mix.

Gallego Romero et al. (2011) further state that their research on lactose tolerance in India suggests that "the west Eurasian genetic contribution identified by Reich et al. (2009) principally reflects gene flow from Iran and the Middle East

Not entirely accurate as many believed Indus population was not simply imported Iranian, rather long local mixing inside Subcon over millennia, without evidence of a massive later demographic replacement from Iran.
To sum it up Indus populations were not straightforward descendants of Near Eastern farmers, but rather a distinct mixed population formed within Indian subcontinent from both Iran related and indigenous ancestries.

Gallego Romero notes that Indians who are lactose-tolerant show a genetic pattern regarding this tolerance which is "characteristic of the common European mutation."

Lactase persistence itself is a weak proxy for civilisation origins. A single adaptive allele can spread through trade, elite dominance, small founder effect without implying pop replacement.

You have derailed the thread with your ramblings about mughals and marathas and ashoka for long enough. But suffice to say, what you dismiss as "blabber" clearly shatters the fragile illusion you have crafted in your mind of Ashoka being a magnanimous and virtuous individual,

Nice delusions. You make Ashoka looks way cooler lol! but as a Pakistani your ignorance on the topic is forgivable.

Mehrgahr to be a key nidus for fertile crescentic civilisational expansion eastwards would also reason that Ashoka was a very cruel man, who reflected the murderous tyranny of the empires of his time. No criticism from me for his behaviour whatsoever! He is part of the heritage of this region, just like everyone else is. He slaughtered many of your dharmic fathers and mothers. So what? Should we remove him from our history syllabi because of that

Mehrgarh sure was important back in the day (even now is, but for different purpose than being IVC), but archeology evolved, what we thought was cradle of IVC turned out to be an ancient outpost of Iranian farmers. Newer models suggests a distributed development of IVC rather than single point, but you keep clinging on to it and your entire argument rests on Mehrgarh being IVC. I'm not denying it by saying it has zero connection, it does but you created a mental image that somehow I reject Mehrgarh and is now fiercely defending it.

 

[Master Chief]

Haha you don't. Roughly two thirds are in India. Again you're welcome to fact check me. You can fit both Harappa and Mohenjodaro in Ralhigarhi site. You're seeing this as some emotional battle. But in reality the IVC sites extend to today's Pakistan and Afghanistan from India with India still having the most sites be it total area or simple site area.

It's not my refusal that's the problem a wider Arceologists don't accept them as IVC. As for Pakistan being father, you're an Islamic republic founded by Jinnah and his friends for Muslims of subcon it reject every idea India stands for including it's culture. Idol breakers who pride themselves being one, romanticise it with poems and then go "whaa we wuzz kangs". Rest of your immature low IQ rant is ignored.

Very much debatable because older sites in Bhiranna reveal the development was largely localised not migratory. You said if Mehrgarh was part of Nagaland etc... why go that far, your entire country was part of India. So it only make it more obvious.

You must have a DNA evidence for these lineage theories right? Dental evidence is weakest source for genetic mapping. Mehrgarh is probably a settlement of early farmers but they are not the cradle of IVC.

What I found interesting in your entire argument is somehow Bhiranna site hurts your argument but it actually does ain't it? All these mean nothing when they are not clasified as IVC. These theories you quoted are old when people thought these migrations caused the development of IVC my argument is the mixing causes IVC.

Already lost that plot when we did DNA analysis on Rakhigarhi skeleton half and half mix.


Not entirely accurate as many believed Indus population was not simply imported Iranian, rather long local mixing inside Subcon over millennia, without evidence of a massive later demographic replacement from Iran.
To sum it up Indus populations were not straightforward descendants of Near Eastern farmers, but rather a distinct mixed population formed within Indian subcontinent from both Iran related and indigenous ancestries.

Lactase persistence itself is a weak proxy for civilisation origins. A single adaptive allele can spread through trade, elite dominance, small founder effect without implying pop replacement.

Nice delusions. You make Ashoka looks way cooler lol! but as a Pakistani your ignorance on the topic is forgivable.

Mehrgarh sure was important back in the day (even now is, but for different purpose than being IVC), but archeology evolved, what we thought was cradle of IVC turned out to be an ancient outpost of Iranian farmers. Newer models suggests a distributed development of IVC rather than single point, but you keep clinging on to it and your entire argument rests on Mehrgarh being IVC. I'm not denying it by saying it has zero connection, it does but you created a mental image that somehow I reject Mehrgarh and is now fiercely defending it.

Don't know why you are getting offended by reality.

246,000 square km in India while 345,000 square km in Pakistan.

Do feel free to consult any of the widely available maps that depict this shocking truth.


India has the larger number of sites and the largest individual, but that is no surprise as the sprawling tightly arranged sites on your side of the border contrast to the wider spaced metropolitan city states that exist in Pakistan. There is no point even comparing Mohenjo-Daro and Harrapa to whatever backwater slum you people have nominal control over.

Keep ignoring my facts and pretending they are "rants". That's what bhakts do. India is 1 day younger than Pakistan. There is no such concept as "ancient India" in the coterminous lands of Pakistan. What scholars regard as "ancient India" is actually the Indus basin, which is not definable as "Indic" or "Indian" relative to the nation state "India". Are you genuinely that ignorant that you think otherwise? Had your country been termed "Bharat" or "Hindustan", you would be sleeping peacefully every night because "ancient Bharat" would be confined strictly to your side of the border and you could freely wallow in whatever relics of whatever ancient tree swinging elephant jockey culture you wished to! There would be clear delineation in your mind between the lands of Porus invaded by Alexander and the Nandas to the east. You know this as well as I do, yet because some fraudu called Nehru chose the name "India" you loyal servants of the Nehru-Golwalkar 2 sided coin of civilisational legacy wake up every day fantasising about Pakistani territories.

Ancient Pakistan is Ancient Pakistan and Ancient Hindustan is Ancient Hindustan. If anything, we are the precursors of the IVC and hold its greater land mass and its most renowned sites of its mature phase. India has usurped the periphery of the IVC at the eastern edge. We wouldn't mind this if it wasn't for your CONSTANT bhakt driven and pseudo-scientific efforts to redefine what the IVC was.

Do you know how laughable it is when your ilk deny the Iranian origins of the Harappan genome, even after Indian researchers themselves have pointed out the reality of eastward spread of genomic pedigree? We haven't even mentioned the Aryans yet, who came from much further afield and became your fathers without any objections!

You are so indoctrinated by your ayurvedic whatsapp mentality that you don't realise how retarded your suggestions of some sort of "Indian ownership" of pan-IVC legacy even are. As an example, let's take the Romans. The Romans occupied Gaul and (most of) Germania. Are they both now regarded as Ancient Germania? Is it even remotely plausible?

As for Ashoka and the Mughals, you are yet to explain to me how one tyrant is different from another. Until that day comes, please do enjoy your tyrant but do not lecture others on picking and choosing on the basis of some baseless definition of "moral supremacy". I don't care how many botanical gardens he patronised, the man is a cold blooded butcher of dharmics. Instead of accusing others of "rants", have the common decency to own your obsession, rather than propagating the myth that Ashoka was somehow magnanimous and virtuous.

You can argue all you like about "not entirely accurate saar" but I have provided you with referenced pieces that you choose to disregard to suit your narrative. Of course Mehrgahr populations changed over time, influenced locally as well as by its neolithic origins. Indeed, the article refers to the difference between the Neolithic and the Chalcolithic inhabitants on the basis of dental records (as a side note, you dismissing dental records as insubstantial is illustrative of how little you understand or are willing to understand on the matter). Certainly, precursor populations were replaced by newer ones. But ultimately, the Iranian genome NEVER left the IVC, and this is clearly demonstrated in the MUCH LATER population at Rakhigiri. Do I need to post the findings of Shinde et al for the UMPTEENTH time so you understand that Iranian farmer DNA comprises 50-80% of the Harappan genome??

I will tell you another story - David Reich, the leading authority of south Asian genomic heritage didn't originally want to refer to a specific cluster, "ASI" in these terms ("Ancestral South Indian") because it was a misleading term. He was bullied into using this term by folks like you, who took it personally that some of your genetic composition comes from outside of Hindustan. What he used to call "ASI" was not technically a group delimited by genomics to the Indian subcontinent (it was largely Iranian!). Hilarious isn't it? The term is now defunct, good thing too.

Lastly, on the spread of lactase from a genetic perspective. That you dismiss this as a "weak proxy" is the icing on your saffronist cake of ignorance. You're suggesting that it is PREVALENT because of "founder effect" and not because of "population replacement". A gene was introduced and became prevalent in a community. We can speculate whether this was forcibly achieved through warfare against the local genome or by the locals simply yielding willingly. You decide what your ancestors were, it doesn't make a difference to me whether they fought and lost or stayed alive to be cucks. What matters is that the gene in question is widespread today in North West India. Interestingly, it may not be middle eastern but it may be related to yet another group of fathers from Eurasia (*edit: directly or "circuitously" from Middle East via the Eurasian Steppe seems to be a bone of academic contention). Feel free to explore the rich tapestry of your genetic history, but try not to feel offended if those genes came from migrants!

Revisiting the Evolution of Lactase Persistence: Insights from South Asian Genomes - PMC

Lactase persistence (LP), the ability to digest lactose from milk into adulthood, is a classic example of natural selection in humans. Multiple mutations upstream of the LCT gene are associated with LP and have been previously shown to be under ...

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

 

[Vikramaditya1]

Don't know why you are getting offended by reality.

246,000 square km in India while 345,000 square km in Pakistan.

According to reddit crap called r/Ancient_Pak . Echo chamber where each of you conform with each other.

The entire IVC is around 1.1 - 1.3 million sqkm, according to Britannica where did the rest of 600000 sqkm go?

Do feel free to consult any of the widely available maps that depict this shocking truth.

Map is of mature Harappan period that was excavated. Even the map itself covers more than 300000 sqkm area in India if you simply count the states it covers fully. Clearly you have no clue.

India has the larger number of sites and the largest individual, but that is no surprise as the sprawling tightly arranged sites on your side of the border contrast to the wider spaced metropolitan city states that exist in Pakistan. There is no point even comparing Mohenjo-Daro and Harrapa to whatever backwater slum you people have nominal control over.

It extends as far as Uttar Pradesh Sinauli, that's more than 500Km East of Indo Pak border. As I said long back, Pakistan is a British creation in all aspects. It was a barren land with low population density which was re populated with the help of canals that are some 200 years old.

Keep ignoring my facts and pretending they are "rants". That's what bhakts do. India is 1 day younger than Pakistan. There is no such concept as "ancient India" in the coterminous lands of Pakistan. What scholars regard as "ancient India" is actually the Indus basin, which is not definable as "Indic" or "Indian" relative to the nation state "India". Are you genuinely that ignorant that you think otherwise? Had your country been termed "Bharat" or "Hindustan", you would be sleeping peacefully every night because "ancient Bharat" would be confined strictly to your side of the border and you could freely wallow in whatever relics of whatever ancient tree swinging elephant jockey culture you wished to! There would be clear delineation in your mind between the lands of Porus invaded by Alexander and the Nandas to the east. You know this as well as I do, yet because some fraudu called Nehru chose the name "India" you loyal servants of the Nehru-Golwalkar 2 sided coin of civilisational legacy wake up every day fantasising about Pakistani territories.

It's called British India for a reason and it was officially called the partition of India. India according to the Greek itself is quadrilateral shaped land with sea on either sides, and Romans traded more with far south of India, (silk road) there are more Roman coins found from South of India than in anywhere in Pakistan as a matter of fact even more than in China. There are Chinese who visisted "India" both South and North Eastern parts. All these are written records and are irrefutable.
Pliny the Elder famously complained in his writings that the luxury trade with India was draining the Roman treasury of 50 million sesterces annually. Guess who Pliny was talking about, you think Pakistan famous for its malabar black pepper trade?
None of these people Romans, Greeks, Chinese had any confusion when it comes to where India was and where were it's borders. But somehow Pakistanis got this idea that their tiny plot of land is somehow the entirety of Indic civilization.

Ancient Pakistan is Ancient Pakistan and Ancient Hindustan is Ancient Hindustan. If anything, we are the precursors of the IVC and hold its greater land mass and its most renowned sites of its mature phase. India has usurped the periphery of the IVC at the eastern edge. We wouldn't mind this if it wasn't for your CONSTANT bhakt driven and pseudo-scientific efforts to redefine what the IVC was.

Ancient Pakistan doesn't exist, it exist on r/Ancient_pak. You also lack the acumen to even larp which is why your theories get laughed at.

Do you know how laughable it is when your ilk deny the Iranian origins of the Harappan genome, even after Indian researchers themselves have pointed out the reality of eastward spread of genomic pedigree? We haven't even mentioned the Aryans yet, who came from much further afield and became your fathers without any objections!

Again, your imaginative scenario where you are Victorious in proving that I'm wrong. That I said there are no Iranians and you proved me wrong. Congratulations lmao

You are so indoctrinated by your ayurvedic whatsapp mentality that you don't realise how retarded your suggestions of some sort of "Indian ownership" of pan-IVC legacy even are. As an example, let's take the Romans. The Romans occupied Gaul and (most of) Germania. Are they both now regarded as Ancient Germania? Is it even remotely plausible?

So IVC guys now conquered parts of India. Ok. I like the new spin.

As for Ashoka and the Mughals, you are yet to explain to me how one tyrant is different from another. Until that day comes, please do enjoy your tyrant but do not lecture others on picking and choosing on the basis of some baseless definition of "moral supremacy". I don't care how many botanical gardens he patronised, the man is a cold blooded butcher of dharmics. Instead of accusing others of "rants", have the common decency to own your obsession, rather than propagating the myth that Ashoka was somehow magnanimous and virtuous.

Oh it's quite simple, Central Asian with foreign culture is treated as an outsider which they themselves considered one but for whatever reason me calling them outsider and invader hurts your feelings I don't understand the logic at all. Ashoka a native king faught wars to secure his kingdom then he culturally expanded Indian influence far east. Indians are free to fight and unify Indian subcontinent. Fighting war is dharmic, you get warriors heaven if you fight in wars and die. Alas he decided to give up for another dharmic belief which eventually weakened his kingdom. He was indeed the greatest of all kings India ever had. Many people can interpret wars but he indeed spread Buddhism across the far east.

I will tell you another story - David Reich, the leading authority of south Asian genomic heritage didn't originally want to refer to a specific cluster, "ASI" in these terms ("Ancestral South Indian") because it was a misleading term. He was bullied into using this term by folks like you, who took it personally that some of your genetic composition comes from outside of Hindustan.

Wrong again, the compromise wasn't about DNA origin but rather about the nomenclature, ANI and ASI they didn't want to use Aryan Dravidian or caste points which is a sensitive topic. That's the compromise. Man bring some arguments that actually make sense, how can you be consistently wrong. Sheesh. Look here.....

What he used to call "ASI" was not technically a group delimited by genomics to the Indian subcontinent (it was largely Iranian!). Hilarious isn't it? The term is now defunct, good thing too.

Quotes Reichs study then say ASI was largely Iranian. Hillarious yes, your stupidity.
Reich study says ASI is indigenous South Asian, the Iranian component in their DNA is through secondary remixing of IVC and AASI.
To put it simply IVC = AASI + IHG
ASI = IVC + AASI
ANI = IVC + Steppe Herder
North Indians have more ANI component and less ASI component, South Indians the opposite. That's it.

Lastly, on the spread of lactase from a genetic perspective. That you dismiss this as a "weak proxy" is the icing on your saffronist cake of ignorance. You're suggesting that it is PREVALENT because of "founder effect" and not because of "population replacement". A gene was introduced and became prevalent in a community. We can speculate whether this was forcibly achieved through warfare against the local genome or by the locals simply yielding willingly. You decide what your ancestors were, it doesn't make a difference to me whether they fought and lost or stayed alive to be cucks. What matters is that the gene in question is widespread today in North West India. Interestingly, it may not be middle eastern but it may be related to yet another group of fathers from Eurasia (*edit: directly or "circuitously" from Middle East via the Eurasian Steppe seems to be a bone of academic contention). Feel free to explore the rich tapestry of your genetic history, but try not to feel offended if those genes came from migrants!

*Sigh* more stupidity. Archeological studies on IVC pottery lipids show they were processing dairy on an industrial scale. I wasn't suggesting persistence from Founder effect genius, read again, I said lactose tolerance is a weak argument to show "replacement" theory. That it has a lot of factor to consider which I listed, and you assumed things.

ME stories are theories outside the scope, let's stick to India, especially North West India where Steppe ancestry and lactase persistence peak, the local IVC and AASI genetic foundations are still massive often accounting for 50% to 70% of the total genome. Which basically mean, you need one ancestor thousand years ago who had that allele, there was no replacement or conquest where local population was wiped out.

In other words one steppe guy would be enough to cause that mutation for the entire Indian subcontinent. Which is why I said what I said.

 

[Master Chief]

According to reddit crap called r/Ancient_Pak. Echo chamber where each of you conform with each other.

The entire IVC is around 1.1 - 1.3 million sqkm, according to Britannica where did the rest of 600000 sqkm go?


Map is of mature Harappan period that was excavated. Even the map itself covers more than 300000 sqkm area in India if you simply count the states it covers fully. Clearly you have no clue.

It extends as far as Uttar Pradesh Sinauli, that's more than 500Km East of Indo Pak border. As I said long back, Pakistan is a British creation in all aspects. It was a barren land with low population density which was re populated with the help of canals that are some 200 years old.

It's called British India for a reason and it was officially called the partition of India. India according to the Greek itself is quadrilateral shaped land with sea on either sides, and Romans traded more with far south of India, (silk road) there are more Roman coins found from South of India than in anywhere in Pakistan as a matter of fact even more than in China. There are Chinese who visisted "India" both South and North Eastern parts. All these are written records and are irrefutable.
Pliny the Elder famously complained in his writings that the luxury trade with India was draining the Roman treasury of 50 million sesterces annually. Guess who Pliny was talking about, you think Pakistan famous for its malabar black pepper trade?
None of these people Romans, Greeks, Chinese had any confusion when it comes to where India was and where were it's borders. But somehow Pakistanis got this idea that their tiny plot of land is somehow the entirety of Indic civilization.

Ancient Pakistan doesn't exist, it exist on r/Ancient_pak. You also lack the acumen to even larp which is why your theories get laughed at.

Again, your imaginative scenario where you are Victorious in proving that I'm wrong. That I said there are no Iranians and you proved me wrong. Congratulations lmao

So IVC guys now conquered parts of India. Ok. I like the new spin.

Oh it's quite simple, Central Asian with foreign culture is treated as an outsider which they themselves considered one but for whatever reason me calling them outsider and invader hurts your feelings I don't understand the logic at all. Ashoka a native king faught wars to secure his kingdom then he culturally expanded Indian influence far east. Indians are free to fight and unify Indian subcontinent. Fighting war is dharmic, you get warriors heaven if you fight in wars and die. Alas he decided to give up for another dharmic belief which eventually weakened his kingdom. He was indeed the greatest of all kings India ever had. Many people can interpret wars but he indeed spread Buddhism across the far east.

Wrong again, the compromise wasn't about DNA origin but rather about the nomenclature, ANI and ASI they didn't want to use Aryan Dravidian or caste points which is a sensitive topic. That's the compromise. Man bring some arguments that actually make sense, how can you be consistently wrong. Sheesh. Look here.....

Quotes Reichs study then say ASI was largely Iranian. Hillarious yes, your stupidity.
Reich study says ASI is indigenous South Asian, the Iranian component in their DNA is through secondary remixing of IVC and AASI.
To put it simply IVC = AASI + IHG
ASI = IVC + AASI
ANI = IVC + Steppe Herder
North Indians have more ANI component and less ASI component, South Indians the opposite. That's it.


*Sigh* more stupidity. Archeological studies on IVC pottery lipids show they were processing dairy on an industrial scale. I wasn't suggesting persistence from Founder effect genius, read again, I said lactose tolerance is a weak argument to show "replacement" theory. That it has a lot of factor to consider which I listed, and you assumed things.

ME stories are theories outside the scope, let's stick to India, especially North West India where Steppe ancestry and lactase persistence peak, the local IVC and AASI genetic foundations are still massive often accounting for 50% to 70% of the total genome. Which basically mean, you need one ancestor thousand years ago who had that allele, there was no replacement or conquest where local population was wiped out.

In other words one steppe guy would be enough to cause that mutation for the entire Indian subcontinent. Which is why I said what I said.

You cannot be helped if you cannot read a map.

The "1.3 million" figure is pulled straight off a fanboy Hindustani pseudo-science website. I can provide you the link if you wish but it should be in your browser history.

(Spoiler: https://www.gktoday.in/extent-of-indus-valley-civilization/ )

But guess what? The exact same map i posted is on that website next to the "1.3 million sq km saar!" statement, so the author of the website has cut and pasted whatever map he could find before adding his own measurement.

The problem Hindustanis increasingly face is one of their own making - by flooding the Internet with pseudointellectual tripe, you now find yourself referring to said tripe to validate your own gibberish in a circular fashion.

Let us go further on this. You have stated "mature phase map only saar!". You will notice it does not even include several Mehrgahr associated locations (what is evidently part of the proto-phase of the IVC based on my earlier posts), so if we play the same game of shifting boundaries for "non-mature phase please saar!" that you seem intent on playing, let's include Mehrgahr and other Balochistani sites:



Your case has no geographical reality upon which to base itself. Disregard the "non-mature phase" and Pakistan has greater area coverage. Include it and Pakistan STILL retains the larger component.

Regarding the definition of ASI, you said it yourself - it INCLUDES the IVC genome, as per Reich's own original paper on the matter.

So you tell me, is there an Iranian component in ASI or not?

You're coming across as a genuine bona fide idiot, who disproved what you yourself said moments earlier with the information you yourself referenced.

Here you go (Reich, 2009):
"By introducing methods that can estimate ancestry without accurate ancestral populations, we show that ANI ancestry ranges from 39-71% in most Indian groups, and is higher in traditionally upper caste and Indo-European speakers. Groups with only ASI ancestry may no longer exist in mainland India. However, the indigenous Andaman Islanders are unique in being ASI-related groups without ANI ancestry."

We could spend a month just talking about how screwed your ancestors were by ANI, but let's stick to ASI merely to humour you further.

(N.B. ANI persists in a MINIMUM 39% of Indian genomes today. And up to a whopping 71%!)

ASI alone is essentially extinct. The TRUE INDIGENOUS Andamanese (pure "AASI", essentially speaking) are ASI-RELATED (key word being related, because the Andamanese do NOT contain Iranian DNA, like the ASI does). AASI is your true "out of Africa" originally settled DNA.

I will accept that ASI is somewhat a moot point since as you will have noted by now, ANI influence is ubiquitous across Hindustan, albeit to variable degrees of prevalence. We can go further and bring your Steppe land fathers into the equation and remind you that you are categorically NOT like the Harappan ancestors that you hold aloft with such fake "indigenous" pride. The Rakhigiri specimen does not contain Steppe ancestry, whereas today's Hindustani does. You and I both know where that ancestry came from. Ashoka also knew, while he was rampaging his way through Dharmic lands on behalf of those magical "migrant" genes.

Regarding lactase persistence, you seem to be trying to create a straw man by suggesting I implied a conquest or "wiping out", which I categorically did not. In fact, the paper I cited is of exactly this view, that ANCESTRY, not SELECTION was the driving force for this genetic persistence. Then the question remains, what "ancestry" do they speak of? Is it a local ancestry from indigenous populations or some ancestry from afar? Your assertion that "it is mere founder effect saar" is a reductionist cope to obfuscate the very fact that this mutation came from afar. Someone, somewhere in your "pizza pie" history introduced something beneficial to your genome from abroad. Deal with that in the context of these arguments, as the "non-native" element of this trait (as opposed to your favourite strawman of "invasion" vs "migration") is precisely the issue we are discussing at length here.

You said: "the compromise wasn't about DNA origin but rather about the nomenclature, ANI and ASI they didn't want to use Aryan Dravidian or caste points which is a sensitive topic"

You're beyond recourse now. You have literally just (not for the first time!) re-stated what I stated and claimed it is different. These tactics won't fly here. Yes, Reich had to deploy "ASI (Ancestral South Indian)" for a group that CONTAINS NON-INDIAN DNA (SPECIFICALLY: NEOLITHIC IRANIAN FARMERS) purely to satisfy Hindustani urges related to their perceived identity. Identity politics have influenced the nomenclature deployed by scientists studying your kind, and in turn, ironically enough, hordes of your own illiterates now fail to acknowledge the actual meaning of terms like ASI because of your own historical stupidity in influencing such terminology inappropriately. Of course the term is misleading (good it was dropped!) because of the incorrect assumption that folks draw (perhaps including yourself!) when they see it.

Do tell me again how "wrong" I am prior to immediately reiterating my own points with a self immolating and contradictory spin. It really is quite amusing.

 

[Vikramaditya1]

You cannot be helped if you cannot read a map.

The "1.3 million" figure is pulled straight off a fanboy Hindustani pseudo-science website. I can provide you the link if you wish but it should be in your browser history.

Haha yeah Britannica encyclopedia is pseudo science website. https://kids.britannica.com/students/article/Indus-valley-civilization/275057?hl=en-IN

But guess what? The exact same map i posted is on that website next to the "1.3 million sq km saar!" statement, so the author of the website has cut and pasted whatever map he could find before adding his own measurement.

Oh yeah shure.

The problem Hindustanis increasingly face is one of their own making - by flooding the Internet with pseudointellectual tripe, you now find yourself referring to said tripe to validate your own gibberish in a circular fashion.

Really. We are not the one's cosplaying Indians with saree and have wedding party with Garba songs.

Your case has no geographical reality upon which to base itself. Disregard the "non-mature phase" and Pakistan has greater area coverage. Include it and Pakistan STILL retains the larger component.

Insert proto claim civilization.

Regarding the definition of ASI, you said it yourself - it INCLUDES the IVC genome, as per Reich's own original paper on the matter.

So you tell me, is there an Iranian component in ASI or not?

Oh you diled down huh. From "Largely Iranian" to some component.

You're coming across as a genuine bona fide idiot, who disproved what you yourself said moments earlier with the information you yourself referenced.

Preach! You said ASI is Iranian

Here you go (Reich, 2009):
"By introducing methods that can estimate ancestry without accurate ancestral populations, we show that ANI ancestry ranges from 39-71% in most Indian groups, and is higher in traditionally upper caste and Indo-European speakers. Groups with only ASI ancestry may no longer exist in mainland India. However, the indigenous Andaman Islanders are unique in being ASI-related groups without ANI ancestry."

ASI is still not Iranian.

We could spend a month just talking about how screwed your ancestors were by ANI, but let's stick to ASI merely to humour you further.

Oh it was very funny. I was laughing

(N.B. ANI persists in a MINIMUM 39% of Indian genomes today. And up to a whopping 71%!)

Thank you captain obvious for telling me what I already said.

ASI alone is essentially extinct. The TRUE INDIGENOUS Andamanese (pure "AASI", essentially speaking) are ASI-RELATED (key word being related, because the Andamanese do NOT contain Iranian DNA, like the ASI does). AASI is your true "out of Africa" originally settled DNA.

ASI exist in most of the Indians, more so in South Indians. By your logic, Iranian HG is also extinct, Steppe is extinct, Iranian farmer is extinct, Anatolian farmer is extinct, etc...

I will accept that ASI is somewhat a moot point since as you will have noted by now, ANI influence is ubiquitous across Hindustan, albeit to variable degrees of prevalence. We can go further and bring your Steppe land fathers into the equation and remind you that you are categorically NOT like the Harappan ancestors that you hold aloft with such fake "indigenous" pride. The Rakhigiri specimen does not contain Steppe ancestry, whereas today's Hindustani does. You and I both know where that ancestry came from. Ashoka also knew, while he was rampaging his way through Dharmic lands on behalf of those magical "migrant" genes

Tea leaf influence is ubiquitous across chai that milk is moot. Logic went cuckoo. "You're not related to your mother because you inherited DNA from your father aaah argument. "
And you're all over the place lol! Please keep it coherent and simple.

Regarding lactase persistence, you seem to be trying to create a straw man by suggesting I implied a conquest or "wiping out", which I categorically did not. In fact, the paper I cited is of exactly this view, that ANCESTRY, not SELECTION was the driving force for this genetic persistence. Then the question remains, what "ancestry" do they speak of? Is it a local ancestry from indigenous populations or some ancestry from afar? Your assertion that "it is mere founder effect saar" is a reductionist cope to obfuscate the very fact that this mutation came from afar. Someone, somewhere in your "pizza pie" history introduced something beneficial to your genome from abroad. Deal with that in the context of these arguments, as the "non-native" element of this trait (as opposed to your favourite strawman of "invasion" vs "migration") is precisely the issue we are discussing at length here.

Now now don't try to take the off ramp you wrote earlier that you could achieve Lactose tolerance and I'm quoting your own words "speculate whether this was achieved through warfare against the local genome as if they got "cucked" " such crude low IQ argument expected of someone who quotes Ancient_pak reddit stuff. I never said it was founder effect, I simply pointed out one of the reason for spread of lactose tolerance. That genetic study is not simply either/or there are more nuances. Different ways lactose tolerance can spread.

You said: "the compromise wasn't about DNA origin but rather about the nomenclature, ANI and ASI they didn't want to use Aryan Dravidian or caste points which is a sensitive topic"

Yes. And David Reichs book in 2018 detailed on "Why they didn't use "Aryan" or "Dravidian" "These are linguistic terms, not biological ones. Using them to label DNA clusters would falsely imply that language and genetics map onto each other perfectly, which instantly inflames regional political divisions." And Indian scientists insisted on using Ani and ASI to which he agreed. You wanna challenge it? Go take it up with him.

You're beyond recourse now. You have literally just (not for the first time!) re-stated what I stated and claimed it is different. These tactics won't fly here. Yes, Reich had to deploy "ASI (Ancestral South Indian)" for a group that CONTAINS NON-INDIAN DNA (SPECIFICALLY: NEOLITHIC IRANIAN FARMERS) purely to satisfy Hindustani urges related to their perceived identity. Identity politics have influenced the nomenclature deployed by scientists studying your kind, and in turn, ironically enough, hordes of your own illiterates now fail to acknowledge the actual meaning of terms like ASI because of your own historical stupidity in influencing such terminology inappropriately. Of course the term is misleading (good it was dropped!) because of the incorrect assumption that folks draw (perhaps including yourself!) when they see it.

You're really clueless. The terms ANI and ASI was coined by David Reichs team in Harvard back in 2009. With ASI as pure indigenous people, how can Indian scientists bully them into accepting something that wasn't found till 2019 when Rakhigarhi skeleton DNA was studied. You are just clutching at straws here.

Do tell me again how "wrong" I am prior to immediately reiterating my own points with a self immolating and contradictory spin. It really is quite amusing.

Gaslighting too huh. Your story was full of factual inaccuracies and ignorance and some raging which I find oddly comical coming from you.
The debate about the whole ancestry ended when I quoted the latest story

To put it simply IVC = AASI + IHG
ASI = IVC + AASI
ANI = IVC + Steppe Herder

No, Indian scientists didn't force David Reichs to discard Iranian or anything. His data was simply outdated by the latest findings. AASI was formally published in 2018 by David Reichs in collaboration with Indian scientist Vagheesh Narasimhan. Go on say, you acktually meant this when you said David Reichs was bullied into accepting it. Lol!

 

[Master Chief]

Haha yeah Britannica encyclopedia is pseudo science website. https://kids.britannica.com/students/article/Indus-valley-civilization/275057?hl=en-IN

Oh yeah shure.

Really. We are not the one's cosplaying Indians with saree and have wedding party with Garba songs.

Insert proto claim civilization.

Oh you diled down huh. From "Largely Iranian" to some component.

Preach! You said ASI is Iranian

ASI is still not Iranian.

Oh it was very funny. I was laughing

Thank you captain obvious for telling me what I already said.

ASI exist in most of the Indians, more so in South Indians. By your logic, Iranian HG is also extinct, Steppe is extinct, Iranian farmer is extinct, Anatolian farmer is extinct, etc...

Tea leaf influence is ubiquitous across chai that milk is moot. Logic went cuckoo. "You're not related to your mother because you inherited DNA from your father aaah argument. "
And you're all over the place lol! Please keep it coherent and simple.

Now now don't try to take the off ramp you wrote earlier that you could achieve Lactose tolerance and I'm quoting your own words "speculate whether this was achieved through warfare against the local genome as if they got "cucked" " such crude low IQ argument expected of someone who quotes Ancient_pak reddit stuff. I never said it was founder effect, I simply pointed out one of the reason for spread of lactose tolerance. That genetic study is not simply either/or there are more nuances. Different ways lactose tolerance can spread.

Yes. And David Reichs book in 2018 detailed on "Why they didn't use "Aryan" or "Dravidian" "These are linguistic terms, not biological ones. Using them to label DNA clusters would falsely imply that language and genetics map onto each other perfectly, which instantly inflames regional political divisions." And Indian scientists insisted on using Ani and ASI to which he agreed. You wanna challenge it? Go take it up with him.

You're really clueless. The terms ANI and ASI was coined by David Reichs team in Harvard back in 2009. With ASI as pure indigenous people, how can Indian scientists bully them into accepting something that wasn't found till 2019 when Rakhigarhi skeleton DNA was studied. You are just clutching at straws here.

Gaslighting too huh. Your story was full of factual inaccuracies and ignorance and some raging which I find oddly comical coming from you.
The debate about the whole ancestry ended when I quoted the latest story

No, Indian scientists didn't force David Reichs to discard Iranian or anything. His data was simply outdated by the latest findings. AASI was formally published in 2018 by David Reichs in collaboration with Indian scientist Vagheesh Narasimhan. Go on say, you acktually meant this when you said David Reichs was bullied into accepting it. Lol!

Here is exactly why I am starting to associate the clown face emoji you deploy so routinely with the content of your actual posts. The association is truly Pavlovian.

"Haha yeah Britannica encyclopedia is pseudo science website."

Here is the map from your website with the "1.3 million" area claim:



Look at that map and explain if Quetta and Sutkagen Dor can be regarded as "mature" phase or "precursor". As I stated already, if you choose to include non-mature sites in your area calculus, you may do so, but the joke's still on you because additional sites include additional Pakistani land mass. Cut the pizza pie any way you like, you still end up with less.


"Largely Iranian" vs "some component" - do you comprehend any of the articles you read or just throw out your own personal interpretation? BOTH are entirely plausible as genomic studies provide confidence ranges, as opposed to definitive data points.

Reich's historical analysis suggested ASI's origins partly from the Harappan genome. Ranges are offered for the Iranian contribution to the Harappan genome, massively ranging from 50% to 98%, as per Shinde's recent work.

Naturally, the exact percentage doesn't matter to Indian revisionists' claims, so your attempt at deflection is misplaced and doesn't serve your cause. If it has come from abroad, then it is non-native. This is the simple dichotomy you need to address, not the hundred shades of grey in between. Did Iranians contribute to the Harappan genome or not? Were Iranians one of multiple fathers of yours or not? If so, does this bother you? Simple questions that you seek to dodge in order to obfuscate.

"Cosplaying in sarees and garba" are practices that belong in Hindustan and that I have never indulged in. Vedic Hinduism in its entirety is a foreign and imported tradition that has its roots in Aryan migrant philosophy, so nobody in the subcontinent should feel obliged to partake in such bizarre rituals. I don't know how this comment is relevant to or supportive of your argument, if you actually even have one .

"ASI exist in most of the Indians, more so in South Indians. By your logic, Iranian HG is also extinct, Steppe is extinct, Iranian farmer is extinct, Anatolian farmer is extinct, etc..."

...this is literally gibberish. I stated that ASI is a defunct term, not that its genomic components are themselves extinct. Steppe is not extinct, either as terminology or as a descriptor for its genomic composition. Iranian farmer is also not extinct, either as terminology or as a descriptor for its genomic composition. Yes, David Reich stopped using "ASI" - I never said I had a problem with this decision. Why the hell are you inventing suppositions that you claim are mine to falsely argue against? Please look up "straw man".

"Now now don't try to take the off ramp you wrote earlier that you could achieve Lactose tolerance and I'm quoting your own words "speculate whether this was achieved through warfare against the local genome as if they got "cucked" " such crude low IQ argument expected of someone who quotes Ancient_pak reddit stuff. I never said it was founder effect, I simply pointed out one of the reason for spread of lactose tolerance. That genetic study is not simply either/or there are more nuances. Different ways lactose tolerance can spread."

...more drivel. You have agreed with my assertion that adult lactose tolerance CAME FROM ABROAD AND IT DOESN'T MAKE A DIFFERENCE HOW IT CAME, but you have disguised your agreement as disagreement with me with this "different ways of spread saar" nonsense. What is actually wrong with you? Are you so retarded now that you think others can be tricked in this way?

You worship cows but deny that the ability to tolerate the palatable produce of cows was one of many foreign introduced gifts to your society. Some serious factory resets might be in order.

Is it a welcome gift to tolerate ("typical") dairy produce? Sure it is! As rational beings, we judge foreign gifts on their individual merits - nothing is inherently "good" or "bad" because it is foreign to the subcontinent, or indeed otherwise. Are you starting to understand your factory reset parameters now?

"AASI was formally published in 2018 by David Reichs in collaboration with Indian scientist Vagheesh Narasimhan. Go on say, you acktually meant this when you said David Reichs was bullied into accepting it. Lol!"

...more idle conjecture. Plenty of Indian academics have worked on this subject and their work is rational and not agenda driven. They are certainly not the ones who bully western academics into accepting a Hindu nationalist narrative. Vasant Shinde himself is another one. You seem to be implying that I am accusing anyone simply with an Indian name of being biased, which is not at all what I said or even implied.

Your fundamental problem is failing to understand the rational conclusions drawn - by your own countrymen - about the true foreign origins of the vast majority of modern Indian populations. If you are Andamanese, then I certainly owe you an apology as you alone may then certainly claim "indigenous descendancy", but ANYTHING else puts you neck deep in a pizza pie. Embrace it.

 

[Vikramaditya1]

Here is the map from your website with the "1.3 million" area claim:

Look at that map and explain if Quetta and Sutkagen Dor can be regarded as "mature" phase or "precursor". As I stated already, if you choose to include non-mature sites in your area calculus, you may do so, but the joke's still on you because additional sites include additional Pakistani land mass. Cut the pizza pie any way you like, you still end up with less

If you want to reduce sites in your country who am I to object. The issue is not the map but the size of IVC. Your claim has no sources, and India still holds the most (both in absolute terms in area and numbers) number of sites and including the oldest and largest. You can't muddy the water by simply pushing Mehrgarh.

"Largely Iranian" vs "some component" - do you comprehend any of the articles you read or just throw out your own personal interpretation? BOTH are entirely plausible as genomic studies provide confidence ranges, as opposed to definitive data points.

Haha I want you to read back your own claims over time and learn to laugh at yourselves. Good to see you coming down and redefining words.
Largely Iranian and some component are both valid, that's how confidence interval work. See what Rakhigarhi specimen says it has an AASI ancestry of 64-89% confidence interval. While Iranian is only 11-36%.

Reich's historical analysis suggested ASI's origins partly from the Harappan genome. Ranges are offered for the Iranian contribution to the Harappan genome, massively ranging from 50% to 98%, as per Shinde's recent work.

-----

Naturally, the exact percentage doesn't matter to Indian revisionists' claims, so your attempt at deflection is misplaced and doesn't serve your cause. If it has come from abroad, then it is non-native. This is the simple dichotomy you need to address, not the hundred shades of grey in between. Did Iranians contribute to the Harappan genome or not? Were Iranians one of multiple fathers of yours or not? If so, does this bother you? Simple questions that you seek to dodge in order to obfuscate.

Nobody is native to any lands by your argument. Of course Iranian related ancestry is an important part of IVC it's like you didn't read anything I said and it doesn't bother me at all, why do you think I care about migrations 40000 years ago, or 12000 years ago. If I was East African I will be father of Entire human race. That's your argument basically.

"Cosplaying in sarees and garba" are practices that belong in Hindustan and that I have never indulged in. Vedic Hinduism in its entirety is a foreign and imported tradition that has its roots in Aryan migrant philosophy, so nobody in the subcontinent should feel obliged to partake in such bizarre rituals. I don't know how this comment is relevant to or supportive of your argument, if you actually even have one .

A culture is defined by where it develops, matures, and synthesizes, not by a permanent borders and customs check on its earliest prehistoric ingredients.

...this is literally gibberish. I stated that ASI is a defunct term, not that its genomic components are themselves extinct. Steppe is not extinct, either as terminology or as a descriptor for its genomic composition. Iranian farmer is also not extinct, either as terminology or as a descriptor for its genomic composition. Yes, David Reich stopped using "ASI" - I never said I had a problem with this decision. Why the hell are you inventing suppositions that you claim are mine to falsely argue against? Please look up "straw man".

Haha classic shell and shout " oh you're strawmanning me aaa". You said David Reich was bullied into accepting ASI/ANI and hiding Iranian, your own words not mine. You seriously can't gaslight me into not using your idiocy against you. Also David Reichs never stopped using ASI, it still exist.

more drivel. You have agreed with my assertion that adult lactose tolerance CAME FROM ABROAD AND IT DOESN'T MAKE A DIFFERENCE HOW IT CAME, but you have disguised your agreement as disagreement with me with this "different ways of spread saar" nonsense. What is actually wrong with you? Are you so retarded now that you think others can be tricked in this way?

I never denied it came from abroad only contested the method it spread. Gotta have comprehension there.

You worship cows but deny that the ability to tolerate the palatable produce of cows was one of many foreign introduced gifts to your society. Some serious factory resets might be in order.

True Pakistani intellectual argument lol! Cows and cattle culture existed for thousands of years before Lactose tolerance was introduced. The only "gift " the foreigners introduced was you can now drink cows milk directly from its udders thanks I guess. If I had severe lactose intolerance I won't be able to enjoy the lassi.

Is it a welcome gift to tolerate ("typical") dairy produce? Sure it is! As rational beings, we judge foreign gifts on their individual merits - nothing is inherently "good" or "bad" because it is foreign to the subcontinent, or indeed otherwise. Are you starting to understand your factory reset parameters now?

I'm starting to understand how bait and switch works.

more idle conjecture. Plenty of Indian academics have worked on this subject and their work is rational and not agenda driven. They are certainly not the ones who bully western academics into accepting a Hindu nationalist narrative. Vasant Shinde himself is another one. You seem to be implying that I am accusing anyone simply with an Indian name of being biased, which is not at all what I said or even implied.

Bully Reich to do what exactly? Is it one of your conjectures without any evidence of the so called bullying?
You said Reich made changes what changes? None, you created your own fake scenario to beat your own argument.

Your fundamental problem is failing to understand the rational conclusions drawn - by your own countrymen - about the true foreign origins of the vast majority of modern Indian populations. If you are Andamanese, then I certainly owe you an apology as you alone may then certainly claim "indigenous descendancy", but ANYTHING else puts you neck deep in a pizza pie. Embrace it.

Ah nice try. When Reich investigated the AASI in India he found it to be unique to India, andamanese AASI was different from Indian AASI. Onge people's AASI was used as a proxy for comparison they didn't say Onges are the true first people. Applying your logic, Anadamanese are also foreign. Onge people carry 1-2% neanderthal DNA that mix happened somewhere in the middle east in 50000 BCE, they also have Basal East Asian signatures so neither are they pure nor are they native. It all depends on how far do you want to go back?
Your argument also invalidates any IHG because AASI is older than IHG. Anyone with AASI is truly the first migrants. Onge is a proxy the split happened early on while Onge themselves went on to mix with other ancient east asians.

 

[Master Chief]

If you want to reduce sites in your country who am I to object. The issue is not the map but the size of IVC. Your claim has no sources, and India still holds the most (both in absolute terms in area and numbers) number of sites and including the oldest and largest. You can't muddy the water by simply pushing Mehrgarh.

Haha I want you to read back your own claims over time and learn to laugh at yourselves. Good to see you coming down and redefining words.
Largely Iranian and some component are both valid, that's how confidence interval work. See what Rakhigarhi specimen says it has an AASI ancestry of 64-89% confidence interval. While Iranian is only 11-36%.

-----

Nobody is native to any lands by your argument. Of course Iranian related ancestry is an important part of IVC it's like you didn't read anything I said and it doesn't bother me at all, why do you think I care about migrations 40000 years ago, or 12000 years ago. If I was East African I will be father of Entire human race. That's your argument basically.

A culture is defined by where it develops, matures, and synthesizes, not by a permanent borders and customs check on its earliest prehistoric ingredients.

Haha classic shell and shout " oh you're strawmanning me aaa". You said David Reich was bullied into accepting ASI/ANI and hiding Iranian, your own words not mine. You seriously can't gaslight me into not using your idiocy against you. Also David Reichs never stopped using ASI, it still exist.

I never denied it came from abroad only contested the method it spread. Gotta have comprehension there.

True Pakistani intellectual argument lol! Cows and cattle culture existed for thousands of years before Lactose tolerance was introduced. The only "gift " the foreigners introduced was you can now drink cows milk directly from its udders thanks I guess. If I had severe lactose intolerance I won't be able to enjoy the lassi.

I'm starting to understand how bait and switch works.

Bully Reich to do what exactly? Is it one of your conjectures without any evidence of the so called bullying?
You said Reich made changes what changes? None, you created your own fake scenario to beat your own argument.

Ah nice try. When Reich investigated the AASI in India he found it to be unique to India, andamanese AASI was different from Indian AASI. Onge people's AASI was used as a proxy for comparison they didn't say Onges are the true first people. Applying your logic, Anadamanese are also foreign. Onge people carry 1-2% neanderthal DNA that mix happened somewhere in the middle east in 50000 BCE, they also have Basal East Asian signatures so neither are they pure nor are they native. It all depends on how far do you want to go back?
Your argument also invalidates any IHG because AASI is older than IHG. Anyone with AASI is truly the first migrants. Onge is a proxy the split happened early on while Onge themselves went on to mix with other ancient east asians.

I don't think you have actually read or understood the facts regarding David Reich's difficulties with "Hindu nationalists" interfering with his objective scientific research:

Ancient DNA and contemporary politics: The analysis of ancient DNA challenges long‐held beliefs about identity and history with potential for political abuse - PMC

The sequencing and analysis of ancient human DNA has helped to rewrite human history. But it is also tempting politicians, nationalists and supremacists to abuse this research for their agendas. Subject Categories: Chromatin, Epigenetics, Genomics & ...

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

"Hindu nationalism
In October 2008, Reich was collaborating with colleagues in India to study human genetic diversity in South Asia, especially India, comparing genetic data from present‐day populations with historic populations. “They were a mixture of two ancestral populations, one of which was relatively more closely related to Europeans, Central Asians and Near Easterners, and the other of which was less closely related to them”, Reich summarized the results. However, his Indian co‐researchers were concerned that these results could be seized upon by Hindu nationalists. “It was clear that the issue of mixture between populations contributing in a central way to South Asians living today was fraught. If one was going to say something about a major genetic connection between South Asians and people living outside South Asia it would have to be confident about exactly what happened”, Reich said in explaining their caution.

In his book Who We Are and How We Got Here, Reich described the tough negotiations he had with his Indian colleagues. “We came to a standstill. At the time I felt that we were being prevented by political considerations from revealing what we found”. He said these were the “tensest” 24 h in his scientific career. He eventually called the two groups Ancestral North Indians and Ancestral South Indians without prejudging where they came from. “We just focused on saying these two groups, one of which was more closely related to European Central Asians and Near Easterners, and one of which was less closely related, mixed”, he said. “We chose our language carefully so as to be able to convey the scientific results we had without unnecessarily sort of interacting with sensitive issues”. Nonetheless, he said they still got blowback in angry emails from Indians who were offended by the results challenging their religious and ideological beliefs. "

Never mind the amateurish abuse ("angry emails from Indians") that he no doubt suffered from the likes of you and your "native populations only saaaar!" cabal, do take note of his key statement:

"They were a mixture of two ancestral populations, one of which was relatively more closely related to Europeans, Central Asians and Near Easterners, and the other of which was less closely related to them"

In other words, what he was forced to describe as "Ancestral North Indian" was in fact MORE CLOSELY RELATED TO EUROPEANS, CENTRAL ASIANS, NEAR EASTERNERS. AND EVEN WHAT HE WAS FORCED TO DESCRIBE AS "Ancestral South Indian" was also "SIGNIFICANTLY", ALBEIT LESS CLOSELY, RELATED TO EUROPEANS, CENTRAL ASIANS, AND NEAR EASTERNERS.

Your retarded posts belie your firm delusion that these MISLEADING TERMS were somehow ever valid to begin with!

Tell me oh wisest sage and student of ancient history, WHY would the Indian contingent in Reich's research group want him to settle on the terms ASI and ANI which are, in themselves, erroneous terms, as descriptors of two fundamentally MIXED genealogical groups of your ancestors?

Why was it only "Indians" sending "angry emails" over the descriptive terminology deployed with regards to genetic data?

Having the word "Indian" in either of these descriptive terms but excluding the other relevant origin specific terms (e.g. Eurasian, Middle Eastern, Iranian or any combination of these) is misleading and a fundamental act of pseudoscience.

Who could possibly be offended by the REALITY that both genomic lineages ANI and ASI had significant lineage from outside of India?

Let's move on to the Rakhigiri specimen, for the UMPTEENTH time, I shall post this simple diagram for you to dwell upon:


This individual is AT LEAST 50% BUT PROBABLY MOSTLY Iranian origin. I cannot explain this to you any other way. If you choose to obfuscate by claiming there is some functional difference between "only 50% saar" and "majority saar", then I cannot help you further. If your fathers were even only 50% non-Indian, then RSS philosophy and saffron interpretations of the work of esteemed geneticists simply fall flat into a heap of detritus.

Both Reich's original works AND the new work of Shinde fly square in the face of saffron agenda garbage and reveal to you halfwits the realities of your origins. If you choose to bathe in your own effluent despite that, then this is your choice but do not expect Pakistanis to buy any of it!

The IVC is not yours. God forbid we should hand over the keys of this archetypal human civilisation to such reckless people who would rewrite actual science to perform for a certain hindutva agenda. Already, David Reich has been influenced. What's next? Would you like to rename "Iranian Farmers" to some more appropriate phenotypic construct? How about just calling them "Indian Farmers"?? Then nobody would be confused that they actually spawned quite magically in the dusty plains of Uttar Pradesh.

As for AASI, sure, surrogates were used but not without reason. Notwithstanding such minor technicalities, I don't see how this refutes my claim that of all the groups mentioned in Reich's and Shinde's works, AASI is the ONLY ONE that can truly declare a pioneering settlement of the Indian subcontinent. Yes, I regard, by my arguments, that AASI barhadari are the ONLY true native population, having emerged directly from Africa and settled here first and foremost.

Every other group, from your Iranian farmers to your Steppeland Aryan chariot riders came from somewhere else.

Pakistanis are at peace with this reality. Don't forget that we too are mostly from settlers who came from outside the subcontinent; we are mostly genetically very similar to today's north-western indians. Yet you lot seem to remain agitated. There is little that scientific reality can do to alleviate you of this grave affliction. I would recommend some alternative therapy.

 

[Vikramaditya1]

I don't think you have actually read or understood the facts regarding David Reich's difficulties with "Hindu nationalists" interfering with his objective scientific research:

Here we go again.

Hindu nationalism
In October 2008, Reich was collaborating with colleagues in India to study human genetic diversity in South Asia, especially India, comparing genetic data from present‐day populations with historic populations. “They were a mixture of two ancestral populations, one of which was relatively more closely related to Europeans, Central Asians and Near Easterners, and the other of which was less closely related to them”, Reich summarized the results. However, his Indian co‐researchers were concerned that these results could be seized upon by Hindu nationalists. “It was clear that the issue of mixture between populations contributing in a central way to South Asians living today was fraught. If one was going to say something about a major genetic connection between South Asians and people living outside South Asia it would have to be confident about exactly what happened”, Reich said in explaining their caution.

You completely flipped and writing fictions now, when Indian scientists were concerned about the bogus Aryan invasion theory and how it would be misused by Euro Centric colonial minded people David Reich agreed to use the terms ANI and ASI that's what he said in his book. There is no mention of Hindu Nationalist that's you, a Pakistanis fiction who either couldn't comprehend it or is pretending to not know. Either way your attempt is noted laughed and ignored. Try again.

In his book Who We Are and How We Got Here, Reich described the tough negotiations he had with his Indian colleagues. “We came to a standstill. At the time I felt that we were being prevented by political considerations from revealing what we found”. He said these were the “tensest” 24 h in his scientific career. He eventually called the two groups Ancestral North Indians and Ancestral South Indians without prejudging where they came from. “We just focused on saying these two groups, one of which was more closely related to European Central Asians and Near Easterners, and one of which was less closely related, mixed”, he said. “We chose our language carefully so as to be able to convey the scientific results we had without unnecessarily sort of interacting with sensitive issues”. Nonetheless, he said they still got blowback in angry emails from Indians who were offended by the results challenging their religious and ideological beliefs. "

And so what? His peers didn't agree with the terms it's a classic academic discussion and he is explaining the process in his book. He wasn't pressured into accepting or hiding anything. So they agreed to use the term ANI and ASI to describe the two genetic components. Angry emails could be from anyone including left or right intellectuals, or some trolls the point is they didn't change the ANI/ASI tags.

Never mind the amateurish abuse ("angry emails from Indians") that he no doubt suffered from the likes of you and your "native populations only saaaar!" cabal, do take note of his key statement:

---

"They were a mixture of two ancestral populations, one of which was relatively more closely related to Europeans, Central Asians and Near Easterners, and the other of which was less closely related to them"

You copy paste this like this is a hidden cheat code every now and then and it's like you are quoting what I said already in someone else's words. Thank you.

In other words, what he was forced to describe as "Ancestral North Indian" was in fact MORE CLOSELY RELATED TO EUROPEANS, CENTRAL ASIANS, NEAR EASTERNERS. AND EVEN WHAT HE WAS FORCED TO DESCRIBE AS "Ancestral South Indian" was also "SIGNIFICANTLY", ALBEIT LESS CLOSELY, RELATED TO EUROPEANS, CENTRAL ASIANS, AND NEAR EASTERNERS.

The invisible bully forcing David Reich to say things. This just highlights your complete lack of understanding of how a genetic baseline works. You think you uncovered a conspiracy but you’re just reading an introductory paragraph of a 2009 paper.
Yes, ANI is closely related to West Eurasians. Yes ASI also shows a significant relationship to them. Why? Because both ANI and ASI contain varying percentages of the deep, ancient Iranian related hunter gatherer line that shares a common root with West Eurasians from over 25,000 years ago.
When a geneticist says Population A is 'related' to Population B it means they share a common ancestor in deep time. It does not mean Population B traveled in a time machine to invent Population A. By your exact logic, since modern Europeans share steppe and early farmer DNA with South Asians, Europeans are just 'foreign mixtures related to Indians.'
You keep using the phrase 'forced to describe' like a security blanket, completely ignoring the text you pasted where Reich explicitly stated the terms were chosen scientifically to accurately convey the raw data.

Your retarded posts belie your firm delusion that these MISLEADING TERMS were somehow ever valid to begin with!

Bruh!

Tell me oh wisest sage and student of ancient history, WHY would the Indian contingent in Reich's research group want him to settle on the terms ASI and ANI which are, in themselves, erroneous terms, as descriptors of two fundamentally MIXED genealogical groups of your ancestors?

Bait and switch. One time Indian Scientists were right, now Indian scientists were wrong.
But Reich never said they were wrong or was bullied. In fact him and his colleagues coined the term ANI and ASI back in 2008-9. His team wanted to look for another term other than Aryan and Dravidian, at that point the terms Aryan and Dravidian was irrelevant his own team wanted a new term who enquired with Indian academics, and that's how they coined the terms.

Why was it only "Indians" sending "angry emails" over the descriptive terminology deployed with regards to genetic data?

Irrelevant.

Having the word "Indian" in either of these descriptive terms but excluding the other relevant origin specific terms (e.g. Eurasian, Middle Eastern, Iranian or any combination of these) is misleading and a fundamental act of pseudoscience.

Because they are afterall Indians ain't it? Your problem maybe quite simple, "saaar why do you call them Indian saaaar why not ANP, AAS Pakistan saaar r/ancient_pak said that saar" like it's that simple.

IHG is a mix of Basal Euroaseans and Ancestral North Euroaseans, so why call them Iranian?

Who could possibly be offended by the REALITY that both genomic lineages ANI and ASI had significant lineage from outside of India?

Nobody. Rastafarians if you want someone to be.

Let's move on to the Rakhigiri specimen, for the UMPTEENTH time, I shall post this simple diagram for you to dwell upon:

Big mistake. You didn't understand a "simple diagram"

This individual is AT LEAST 50% BUT PROBABLY MOSTLY Iranian origin. I cannot explain this to you any other way. If you choose to obfuscate by claiming there is some functional difference between "only 50% saar" and "majority saar", then I cannot help you further. If your fathers were even only 50% non-Indian, then RSS philosophy and saffron interpretations of the work of esteemed geneticists simply fall flat into a heap of detritus.

Zero understanding of anything. These people. PrObAbLy mOsTlY
Reichs lab results showed the individual is 36% Iranian Hunter gatherer at most, 89% AASI at most. 11% Iranian Hunter gatherer at least 64% AASI at least. (Hope it made sense to you)

Even peer reviewed study done by David Reich you quote agressively say the individual is 36% Iranian if we model it at the highest level for IHG.

Both Reich's original works AND the new work of Shinde fly square in the face of saffron agenda garbage and reveal to you halfwits the realities of your origins. If you choose to bathe in your own effluent despite that, then this is your choice but do not expect Pakistanis to buy any of it!

Quite literally your only problem maybe calling it AAS Indian, AN Indian, AS Indian. Ain't it? Hand on heart that's what is hurting you.

The IVC is not yours. God forbid we should hand over the keys of this archetypal human civilisation to such reckless people who would rewrite actual science to perform for a certain hindutva agenda. Already, David Reich has been influenced. What's next? Would you like to rename "Iranian Farmers" to some more appropriate phenotypic construct? How about just calling them "Indian Farmers"?? Then nobody would be confused that they actually spawned quite magically in the dusty plains of Uttar Pradesh.

Oh no David Reich bro got influenced by these Indians into changing the name of mu civilization. Those damn Indian Hindu nationalists.

As for AASI, sure, surrogates were used but not without reason. Notwithstanding such minor technicalities, I don't see how this refutes my claim that of all the groups mentioned in Reich's and Shinde's works, AASI is the ONLY ONE that can truly declare a pioneering settlement of the Indian subcontinent. Yes, I regard, by my arguments, that AASI barhadari are the ONLY true native population, having emerged directly from Africa and settled here first and foremost.

AASI tree that sprout from the ground dropping AASI seeds on the ground.

Every other group, from your Iranian farmers to your Steppeland Aryan chariot riders came from somewhere else.

East African are the original people yes!!!

Pakistanis are at peace with this reality. Don't forget that we too are mostly from settlers who came from outside the subcontinent; we are mostly genetically very similar to today's north-western indians. Yet you lot seem to remain agitated. There is little that scientific reality can do to alleviate you of this grave affliction. I would recommend some alternative therapy.

Another case of inventing an argument and doing a victory lap. Lol!

 

[Master Chief]

His team wanted to look for another term other than Aryan and Dravidian

Amidst your whining little monologue, here is your key denial of reality, buried under layer upon layer of exhaustive and exhausting cope.

How the f can "Aryan" be exchanged for "ancient north INDIAN", without instantly misleading and prejudicing the reader into believing this genome arose in "north INDIA" and nowhere else? Instantly, the NON-INDIAN connection is erased by simple nomenclature and lo and behold, "out of India" becomes a reality in the minds of so many unwashed hordes.

This alteration of nomenclature is puritanical cope of the highest order.

Bait and switch. One time Indian Scientists were right, now Indian scientists were wrong.

Yes, Indian researchers came up with the correct genetic facts but they couldn't overcome their political urges to find a coping mechanism for these genomes being derived, even partly, from outside Hindustan. Either the influence was internal or external from bhakts like you.

You completely flipped and writing fictions now, when Indian scientists were concerned about the bogus Aryan invasion theory and how it would be misused by Euro Centric colonial minded people David Reich agreed to use the terms ANI and ASI that's what he said in his book. There is no mention of Hindu Nationalist that's you, a Pakistanis fiction who either couldn't comprehend it or is pretending to not know. Either way your attempt is noted laughed and ignored. Try again.

Don't complain incessantly about what is presented before you. Try to refute it with evidence.

Please reconcile your assertion that:
"[the risk was from] Euro centric colonial minded people... there is no mention of hindu nationalist; that's you [inventing the suggestion]"

.....with the following direct peer reviewed journal quote (already cited above once for you, which you chose to ignore)...

"Hindu nationalism.
In October 2008, Reich was collaborating with colleagues in India to study human genetic diversity in South Asia, especially India, comparing genetic data from present‐day populations with historic populations. “They were a mixture of two ancestral populations, one of which was relatively more closely related to Europeans, Central Asians and Near Easterners, and the other of which was less closely related to them”, Reich summarized the results. However, his Indian co‐researchers were concerned that these results could be seized upon by Hindu nationalists. “It was clear that the issue of mixture between populations contributing in a central way to South Asians living today was fraught. If one was going to say something about a major genetic connection between South Asians and people living outside South Asia it would have to be confident about exactly what happened”, Reich said in explaining their caution.

In his book Who We Are and How We Got Here, Reich described the tough negotiations he had with his Indian colleagues. “We came to a standstill. At the time I felt that we were being prevented by political considerations from revealing what we found”. He said these were the “tensest” 24 h in his scientific career. He eventually called the two groups Ancestral North Indians and Ancestral South Indians without prejudging where they came from. “We just focused on saying these two groups, one of which was more closely related to European Central Asians and Near Easterners, and one of which was less closely related, mixed”, he said. “We chose our language carefully so as to be able to convey the scientific results we had without unnecessarily sort of interacting with sensitive issues”. Nonetheless, he said they still got blowback in angry emails from Indians who were offended by the results challenging their religious and ideological beliefs".

Did Reich complain about this text? Did he speak to the editor that he was misrepresented and that actually "Hindu nationalists" were not the problem??

You're deliberately misrepresenting Reich's work and his specific concerns with "Hindu nationalists", NOT "EURO CENTRIC COLONIAL MINDED PEOPLE"...don't embarass yourself further with this lie.

Obviously it's hard for you to accept my assertions because they are clearly contrary to your own carefully constructed cope bubble. I understand that. But sooner or later, that bubble will go pop! Best be ready for this hard reality.

Zero understanding of anything. These people. PrObAbLy mOsTlY
Reichs lab results showed the individual is 36% Iranian Hunter gatherer at most, 89% AASI at most. 11% Iranian Hunter gatherer at least 64% AASI at least. (Hope it made sense to you)

Here's the figure once again for you:



"Probably mostly" is a perfectly accurate reflection of statistical confidence, since a RANGE of possible values is provided (50%-98%) for the Iranian contribution to this particular genome. Now stay with me on this. Can you see the label "I6113" on the pretty ickle picture above? That represents the projection point of our madam from Rakhigiri onto this genomic map or cline. Here is an extract of what Shinde et al go on to say:

"I6113 falls on the more Iranian-related end of the gradient, revealing that Iranian-related ancestry extended to the eastern geographic extreme of the IVC and was not restricted to individuals at its Iranian and Central Asian periphery. The estimated proportion of ancestry related to tribal groups in southern India in I6113 is smaller than in present day groups, suggesting that since the time of the IVC there has been gene flow into the part of South Asia where Rakhigarhi lies from both the northwest (bringing more Steppe ancestry)and southeast (bringing more ancestry related to tribal groups in southern India). The genetic profile that we document in this individual, with large proportions of Iranian-related ancestry but no evidence of Steppe pastoralist-related ancestry, is no longer found in modern populations of South Asia or Iran, providing further validation that the data we obtained from this individual reflects authentic ancient DNA."

It's interesting that your latest cope is "look at full possible ranges of data saar! Could be lower percentage saaaaar!".

Let me tell you what is DEFINITELY NOT TRUE: that there is ZERO contribution to the Indus Valley genome from Iranians.

Now be clear here old boy - we are not even yet discussing you MODERN "Indian" descendants of MULTIPLE FATHERS, INCLUDING FATHERS FROM EURASIAN STEPPE LAND. which this study has irrefutably confirmed to be the case. We are ONLY discussing the IVC cline BEFORE any fair skinned "migrants" (lol!) came from the Steppe.

If you are this angry about your Iranian fathers, what will you do when you learn about the Aryans and Vedism and Sanskrit and all the rest of the magical "pizza pie"? When Ashoka found out about his true lineage, he got pretty pissed and took out his frustrations on fellow dharmics. Hope you choose a different, more mature path to personal redemption.

 

[Vikramaditya1]

Amidst your whining little monologue, here is your key denial of reality, buried under layer upon layer of exhaustive and exhausting cope.

How the f can "Aryan" be exchanged for "ancient north INDIAN", without instantly misleading and prejudicing the reader into believing this genome arose in "north INDIA" and nowhere else? Instantly, the NON-INDIAN connection is erased by simple nomenclature and lo and behold, "out of India" becomes a reality in the minds of so many unwashed hordes.

This alteration of nomenclature is puritanical cope of the highest order.

I didn't deny anything I'm quoting Reich and other genetecists who already dropped those defunct terms. Also you lack the basic comprehension which has been a problem since the beginning. Poor comprehension in your case is forgivable given ROH population tend to have such a trait. Which is a key difference between you and NW Indians, although you claimed you are alike, but no.

Yes, Indian researchers came up with the correct genetic facts but they couldn't overcome their political urges to find a coping mechanism for these genomes being derived, even partly, from outside Hindustan. Either the influence was internal or external from bhakts like you.

Formulated by David Reich from Harvard and his colleagues at MIT. The words ANI and ASI. They are way above your gutter level r/ancient_pak forum on reddit.

Don't complain incessantly about what is presented before you. Try to refute it with evidence.

Please reconcile your assertion that:
"[the risk was from] Euro centric colonial minded people... there is no mention of hindu nationalist; that's you [inventing the suggestion]"

.....with the following direct peer reviewed journal quote (already cited above once for you, which you chose to ignore)...

"Hindu nationalism.
In October 2008, Reich was collaborating with colleagues in India to study human genetic diversity in South Asia, especially India, comparing genetic data from present‐day populations with historic populations. “They were a mixture of two ancestral populations, one of which was relatively more closely related to Europeans, Central Asians and Near Easterners, and the other of which was less closely related to them”, Reich summarized the results. However, his Indian co‐researchers were concerned that these results could be seized upon by Hindu nationalists. “It was clear that the issue of mixture between populations contributing in a central way to South Asians living today was fraught. If one was going to say something about a major genetic connection between South Asians and people living outside South Asia it would have to be confident about exactly what happened

You ain't fooling anyone clipping his texts and adding lines without context. They weren't trying to hide "outside blood." They were deeply worried that terms like "Ancestral North Indian" and "Ancestral South Indian" would be politically weaponized by extreme factions to argue that North Indians were "foreigners" and South Indians were a completely different, marginalized race.

Reich own work showed that every single group in India whether North or South, upper caste or lower caste is a deep, ancient mixture of BOTH ANI and ASI.
David Reich explicitly writes that the data completely demolished the idea of pure, separate populations. So your argument that Reich was forced to hide something is your own sleep demons telling you stuff.

In his book Who We Are and How We Got Here, Reich described the tough negotiations he had with his Indian colleagues. “We came to a standstill. At the time I felt that we were being prevented by political considerations from revealing what we found”. He said these were the “tensest” 24 h in his scientific career. He eventually called the two groups Ancestral North Indians and Ancestral South Indians without prejudging where they came from. “We just focused on saying these two groups, one of which was more closely related to European Central Asians and Near Easterners, and one of which was less closely related, mixed”, he said. “We chose our language carefully so as to be able to convey the scientific results we had without unnecessarily sort of interacting with sensitive issues”. Nonetheless, he said they still got blowback in angry emails from Indians who were offended by the results challenging their religious and ideological beliefs".

Funny you just clutching hard at the 2009 boardroom discussion. He didn't have the latest findings. Those naming conventions were a neutral use without prejudices. He didn't even emphasised it as an important aspect he was simply glad that such a name was chosen because in 2019 this naming would become important.

Did Reich complain about this text? Did he speak to the editor that he was misrepresented and that actually "Hindu nationalists" were not the problem??

Yeahhh... Hindu nationalism in 2009 was so powerful shure.....

You're deliberately misrepresenting Reich's work and his specific concerns with "Hindu nationalists", NOT "EURO CENTRIC COLONIAL MINDED PEOPLE"...don't embarass yourself further with this lie.

Read the book properly. He was saying the problem of Aryan invasion theory being used as a stick against North Indians by certain groups in South who still keep the Colonial mentality of being ruled by others as well as the Hindu Nationalists who reject the idea of foreign invaders coming and creating this culture. Which he says the terms ANI and ASI addresses. But I don't know what's so wrong about it. He addrssed and academic concern that may have political ramifications and the result is for all of us to see. Nobody is having a problem with the terms no more.

Obviously it's hard for you to accept my assertions because they are clearly contrary to your own carefully constructed cope bubble. I understand that. But sooner or later, that bubble will go pop! Best be ready for this hard reality.

Cliche just raise the white flag already lmao you're getting desperate.

Probably mostly" is a perfectly accurate reflection of statistical confidence, since a RANGE of possible values is provided (50%-98%) for the Iranian contribution to this particular genome. Now stay with me on this. Can you see the label "I6113" on the pretty ickle picture above? That represents the projection point of our madam from Rakhigiri onto this genomic map or cline. Here is an extract of what Shinde et al go on to say:

The genome is 64% to 89% indigenous AASI, it is mathematically impossible for it to be "mostly Iranian." You are staring so hard at a single label on a PCA map that you have completely lost the ability to do basic, single digit arithmetic.

I6113 falls on the more Iranian-related end of the gradient, revealing that Iranian-related ancestry extended to the eastern geographic extreme of the IVC and was not restricted to individuals at its Iranian and Central Asian periphery. The estimated proportion of ancestry related to tribal groups in southern India in I6113 is smaller than in present day groups, suggesting that since the time of the IVC there has been gene flow into the part of South Asia where Rakhigarhi lies from both the northwest (bringing more Steppe ancestry)and southeast (bringing more ancestry related to tribal groups in southern India). The genetic profile that we document in this individual, with large proportions of Iranian-related ancestry but no evidence of Steppe pastoralist-related ancestry, is no longer found in modern populations of South Asia or Iran, providing further validation that the data we obtained from this individual reflects authentic ancient DNA."

Thank you for proving your own blunders. You are fundamentally confusing a geographic gradient within the IVC and when they said "more Iranian" you stupidly thought they meant more Iranian than AASI.
They didn't think there would be an Iranian component that is 36% IHG rather assumed the people to be higher in AASI as you move east.

It's interesting that your latest cope is "look at full possible ranges of data saar! Could be lower percentage saaaaar!".

Hey I'm quoting your favorite Reich. Take it up to him. You can write an angry mail to him asking to include muh Pakistan history I found in r/ancient_pak.

Let me tell you what is DEFINITELY NOT TRUE: that there is ZERO contribution to the Indus Valley genome from Iranians.

Fighting ghost and victory laps. Never have I said that. So you beat your own imagianary arguments, maybe it's the sleep demon eh?

Now be clear here old boy - we are not even yet discussing you MODERN "Indian" descendants of MULTIPLE FATHERS, INCLUDING FATHERS FROM EURASIAN STEPPE LAND. which this study has irrefutably confirmed to be the case. We are ONLY discussing the IVC cline BEFORE any fair skinned "migrants" (lol!) came from the Steppe.

Cock and bull argument. Not even worth addressing such moronic posts.

you are this angry about your Iranian fathers, what will you do when you learn about the Aryans and Vedism and Sanskrit and all the rest of the magical "pizza pie"? When Ashoka found out about his true lineage, he got pretty pissed and took out his frustrations on fellow dharmics. Hope you choose a different, more mature path to personal redemption.

What should I do? I'm to believe that Sindhu Saraswati rivers revered in Rig Vedas are in Pontic steppe? Is that going to be your next argument?
You're blabbering and being mad that's why you are writing Ashoka blah blah blah.

 

[Ali_Baba]

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

Interesting video that popped up on my feed on this topic.

 

[Master Chief]

I didn't deny anything I'm quoting Reich and other genetecists who already dropped those defunct terms. Also you lack the basic comprehension which has been a problem since the beginning. Poor comprehension in your case is forgivable given ROH population tend to have such a trait. Which is a key difference between you and NW Indians, although you claimed you are alike, but no.

Formulated by David Reich from Harvard and his colleagues at MIT. The words ANI and ASI. They are way above your gutter level r/ancient_pak forum on reddit.

You ain't fooling anyone clipping his texts and adding lines without context. They weren't trying to hide "outside blood." They were deeply worried that terms like "Ancestral North Indian" and "Ancestral South Indian" would be politically weaponized by extreme factions to argue that North Indians were "foreigners" and South Indians were a completely different, marginalized race.

Reich own work showed that every single group in India whether North or South, upper caste or lower caste is a deep, ancient mixture of BOTH ANI and ASI.
David Reich explicitly writes that the data completely demolished the idea of pure, separate populations. So your argument that Reich was forced to hide something is your own sleep demons telling you stuff.

Funny you just clutching hard at the 2009 boardroom discussion. He didn't have the latest findings. Those naming conventions were a neutral use without prejudices. He didn't even emphasised it as an important aspect he was simply glad that such a name was chosen because in 2019 this naming would become important.

Yeahhh... Hindu nationalism in 2009 was so powerful shure.....

Read the book properly. He was saying the problem of Aryan invasion theory being used as a stick against North Indians by certain groups in South who still keep the Colonial mentality of being ruled by others as well as the Hindu Nationalists who reject the idea of foreign invaders coming and creating this culture. Which he says the terms ANI and ASI addresses. But I don't know what's so wrong about it. He addrssed and academic concern that may have political ramifications and the result is for all of us to see. Nobody is having a problem with the terms no more.

Cliche just raise the white flag already lmao you're getting desperate.

The genome is 64% to 89% indigenous AASI, it is mathematically impossible for it to be "mostly Iranian." You are staring so hard at a single label on a PCA map that you have completely lost the ability to do basic, single digit arithmetic.


Thank you for proving your own blunders. You are fundamentally confusing a geographic gradient within the IVC and when they said "more Iranian" you stupidly thought they meant more Iranian than AASI.
They didn't think there would be an Iranian component that is 36% IHG rather assumed the people to be higher in AASI as you move east.

Hey I'm quoting your favorite Reich. Take it up to him. You can write an angry mail to him asking to include muh Pakistan history I found in r/ancient_pak.

Fighting ghost and victory laps. Never have I said that. So you beat your own imagianary arguments, maybe it's the sleep demon eh?

Cock and bull argument. Not even worth addressing such moronic posts.

What should I do? I'm to believe that Sindhu Saraswati rivers revered in Rig Vedas are in Pontic steppe? Is that going to be your next argument?
You're blabbering and being mad that's why you are writing Ashoka blah blah blah.

You are fundamentally full of crap, due to a chronic inability to refute quoted text and accurately cited references.

I get it mate. It does hurt. I fully understand. But the facts speak for themselves. I have posted entire passages of script, without any redactions or "loss of context" from BOTH the article supporting my assertions that "HINDU NATIONALISTS" were to blame for Reich's backtracking on terminology AND from Shinde's seminal work PROVING MAJORITY IRANIAN GENOMIC ORIGIN for the Harappan civilisation.

The latter holds true whether you choose to take individual I6113 (for whom 63% to 73% of genomic contribution ultimately comes from the Zagros region) as your representative or you extrapolate elsewhere. This is all there in Shinde's own work. If you wish to refute this, post your evidence directly from his paper. Don't just wave your arms around hysterically and expect others to acknowledge your baloney.

Also kindly do not keep creating strawman and deliberately interpreting my words to suit your narratives. I did NOT suggest AASI was mostly Iranian. On the contrary, I was very particular, that AASI is itself a contributory population to the Harappan genome (using I6113 as an archetype). Iranians contributed MORE to that genome. It is you that has to choose to either live with this reality or refute it with evidence from ANY source, but ideally from Shinde himself since you have been blathering on about my supposed "misunderstanding" of his work. It's time to address these issues with cited works, if you are so inclined. Otherwise, you can keep barking at the moon as much as you like - I6113 is not suddenly magically going to be majority AASI (or ANY subcontinental origin cline), despite your protests. Of course, Shinde goes to great lengths to prove that farming itself was not some gift bequeathed from western Iranians to the IVC, which he has demonstrated with his work on the precise postulated date of lineage splitting (see pages 5-6 of his 2019 paper), but the underlying truth remains that some Iranian fathers split from other Iranian fathers and a group of Iranian fathers persisted in the Harappan genome, at a MAJORITY proportion, dominating over the AASI component.

You can keep refusing to address this fundamental truth if you wish, but it is to your own detriment and that of your nation state for one simple reason - if you refuse to acknowledge Iranian parentage of the Harappans, then what hope in hell do you have of ever acknowledging Steppeland parentage of modern north/west Indians?

 

[Distant_Observer]

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies