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

[Neojinnah]

No one in Italy disowns Roman Empire. Latin Alphabet and Christianity is from Roman Era. No one in Germany disputes their descendants were the Germanic tribes. the definition of what is Germanic has evolved over time. It is German.

Both Italy and Germany are basically originally multiethnic countries where large swathes of people are not descended from Germanic tribes or ancient Romans and were assimilated into that identity very recently, so you're wrong. It's this kind of elementary level understanding of the world which leads to Indians making ridiculous assertions.

The language, culture is all there.

Not true. India is a typical post colonial country born out of foreign British rule, modernity, globalization, etc. The culture is a product of this and the official language is English because the inhabitants dont have a common language. But the elite of India are religious fanatics and chauvinists in denial, so they have this delusion that they're exactly the same as people from thousands of years ago.

 

[nahtanbob]

Both Italy and Germany are basically originally multiethnic countries where large swathes of people are not descended from Germanic tribes or ancient Romans and were assimilated into that identity very recently, so you're wrong. It's this kind of elementary level understanding of the world which leads to Indians making ridiculous assertions.

What other ethnicity lives in Italy and Germany proper ?

Not true. India is a typical post colonial country born out of foreign British rule. The culture is a product of this and the official language is English because the inhabitants dont have a common language. But the elite of India are religious fanatics and chauvinists in denial, so they have this delusion that they're exactly the same as people from thousands of years ago.

I have told you the definition keeps changing

you have not answered which people called Indika gets written in 3rd century BC
Or why half a dozen European countries would start East India Companies in the 16th century ?

 

[Neojinnah]

What other ethnicity lives in Italy and Germany proper ?

Albanians, Slavs, and Germanic people in Italy. Poles and Slavs in Germany.
It's incredible how as an Indian you make so many confident assertons about the world and yet demand to be spoonfed what should be basic information. Just one among the myriad of ways engaging with ignorant and obnoxious Hindu fanatics becomes a tiresome chore.

You have not answered which people called Indika gets written in 3rd century BC
Or why half a dozen European countries would start East India Companies in the 16th century ?

Why does it matter? Indika comes from the Sanskrit word Sindhu. There are hundreds of millions of Dravidian Hindus in India today with ancestors who spoke a completely different language to Sanskrit. So why are you kanging on Indika and thinking it will prove your point?

 

[Master Chief]

What other ethnicity lives in Italy and Germany proper ?


I have told you the definition keeps changing

you have not answered which people called Indika gets written in 3rd century BC
Or why half a dozen European countries would start East India Companies in the 16th century ?

You're recycling the same old argument. Not sure why Germania is cited as an example of disparate cultures forming a single polity, as the features of this supposed analogue are quite different from what we see in South Asia.

Germania was the Latin name for Deutschland. Deutschland was the endonym for the Rhineland germanic peoples who resisted Roman rule together (no foreign power imposed the name upon them). The Roman advance politically unified these once warring peoples. Beyond that, they shared languages, DNA, and cultures. This is already substantially different to the South Asian experience. You can take any period in history you like, IVC, Alexander, Maurya, Mughals, British - the traits shared between germanic peoples (DNA, linguistics, culture, religion, even endonymy) did not (to varying degrees) align for South Asian peoples.

Even having said all that, Germanic peoples NEVER actually unified entirely. Hitler didn't even manage it. Anglo-Saxons are a germanic people and they spread far and wide, so how on earth is it even possible for them to unify into a single nation state?

Here's what "India" looked like when white colonisers decided to take over. You're sitting here telling me this was some "unified" front against "non-natives"? (See below)

You can go further back.

Did the Nandas suggest a united defence with Porus against Alexander's advance, or were the Nandas and Porus actually rivals, so much so that Porus was left to his fate despite being supposedly "native barhadari"?

At NO SIGNIFICANT POINT in known history (Harappan era, post-Harappan era, Mauryan era, Mughal era, British colonial era..) can the claim be justifiably and evidently made that the tribes of the Indus and the tribes of the Ganga (+southies) were EVER a united political entity. On the contrary, they rivalled each other (as did MANY other groups within south Asia) and even REPEATEDLY AND CONSISTENTLY plotted each other's downfall with help from Europeans!

Shall we discuss the Marathas and their "unified defence of mother India" next?? Tipu might want to join the chat.

 

[Vikramaditya1]

What does "scholarly consensus" tell us about the Achaemenid satrapy called Hindush? That it did not extend into eastern gangetic realms.

Big deal. Later it did and you can't freeze it neither can it is violating any rules or laws. But then again where is the proof that both had different cultures?

What does "scholarly consensus" tell us about the land mass called "India" as a geographical entity, in terms of its unified status (whether a single polity or united city states)?

Nobody gives a shit about if it was unified seperated by political boundaries. If it did then historical accounts would have used different names for each political entity.

AI response explicitly from scholarly works: "India became a single unified nation-state under a single sovereign government when the Republic of India was established with its constitution in 1950, following independence from Britain in 1947.

You're confusing a modern nation state with a historical geographical, civilisational term again. Also, India became an independent Dominion in 1947 and 1950 marks becoming a republic under its Constitution, not the first existence of India as a political entity.

Before this modern era, the Indian subcontinent was never a single unified nation-state, though certain large empires brought vast regions under one imperial ruler.Early Imperial UnificationThe Mauryan Empire (c. 300–185 BCE): Emperor Ashoka united a large majority of the northern and central subcontinent under one rule, though parts of the far south remained independent.The Mughal Empire (16th–17th century): Under rulers like Akbar and Aurangzeb, the Mughals controlled most of northern and central India, but they never fully conquered the far south or the northeast."

So what? My argument has never required continuous political unity. Political fragmentation does not invalidate a geographical or civilisational category.

Did we not already agree that the land mass of "India" (the erroneous and oversimplified extrapolation of the original Achaemenid definition) was only ever unified by Mauryans, Mughals, and Brits? Similarly, Europe has been forcibly unified at several points in history. The similarities are uncanny in fact. India is as much a country as Europe is. Luckily for you, keeping everybody deliberately stupid in your country helps preserve the illusion.

Except Europe never became a sovereign state called Europe in 1947 whose predecessor administration was already officially called the Government of India. You're comparing a continent with an actual successor state while pretending political nomenclature doesn't matter.

The names are irrelevant to my specific analogy. Let's use a real analogue, the Eternal Reich, or the "Greater Germanic Reich" as hitler explicitly wanted occupied Europe to be called. Did that work out well for all parties concerned, even though they had religious and significant cultural and racial congruence? Indeed, Europe was and is significantly MORE homogenous than India.

Hitler is irrelevant to the naming question. Calling Gandhara or Magadha parts of Ancient India does not mean Delhi had a sovereign right to conquer them. Historical geography is not entitlement to imperial rule. What kind of argument is this Reich blah blah blah. Where did I say we should unify India?

I keep reminding you - we are referring to the naming of South Asian political entities. Did locals establish the name "India" or was it an exonym?
Who gave the Greeks their name "Hellas"? In case you haven't figured it out, it was the Hellenes themselves! Spartans and Athenians BOTH arose directly from hellenic tribes and shared identical genomic ancestry (afaik).

For the nth time India is an exonym in its Greek form. Its ultimate source, however, is the indigenous Sindhu. Nobody disputes either fact. An exonym being foreign does not make the geography it eventually denotes illegitimate.
And great example bringing hellas, here hellas itself expanded from a more restricted designation into a collective Greek one. Thucydides explicitly describes the name hellenes as gradually spreading among communities rather than existing eternally with its later scope. Your Greek example therefore demonstrates that geographical ethnic names can expand.

Ancient Greek identity was not established by genomic testing. Scholarship treats Greek identity as historically constructed through language, religion, genealogy, sanctuaries and other collective institutions. Political and local identities remained extremely strong.

With that in mind, do remind us if gangetics were genetically the same as indus inhabitants (BEFORE the collapse of the IVC, the flight of Harappans eastward, and the arrival of Steppelanders...events that homogenised north Indian and ancient Pakistani profiles to a degree).

And with that in mind, Modern Indian subcon populations themselves derive in varying proportions from overlapping IVC related, AASI and Steppe related ancestries. Genetics shows mixtures and clines what it does not show is a biological wall conveniently matching your proposed "ancient Pakistan" and India frontier.

Also, this migration point you made makes your argument stranger. You're acknowledging major prehistoric population movement and mixture across the very northwest gangetic geography you simultaneously describe as a hard civilisational divide.

Essentially, you're comparing an alliance of City States that decided for themselves they were all GREEK and had the genetic evidence to support that claim starting from their progenitor status....

Eventually, yes. Thucydides specifically says the collective name Hellenes spread gradually and that Homer did not apply it collectively to all Greeks. Collective identities can develop and expand without every constituent population first holding a referendum.

with a geographical lumping together of rival City States who, at best, could be called Bharat if left to their own devices to come up with a name,

Then you've conceded that an indigenous supra-regional name existed. Whether you personally prefer Bharat to India doesn't demonstrate that the latter geographical term is erroneous.

who moreover do not have the cultural, religious, and genetic basis upon which to "merge" with one another (and consequently were not able to, EXCEPT BY FORCE FROM A THIRD PARTY - Maurya, Aurangzeb, Queen Victoria).

Languages, religions, philosophical traditions, epics, pilgrimage networks, political ideas and populations circulated across the subcontinent for millennia. Political diversity doesn't erase those connections. However we don't have a cultural identity to now merge with the two modern political entities created in 1947 neither should we.

Who said it was anything other than a temporal descriptor? You're right that "vedic" is a meaningless qualifier for "brahmi" in a linguistic sense, but brahmi script arose in the era after the vedics had arrived from the Eurasian Steppeland,

Huh? Then withdraw it as evidence of a hard cultural boundary, because a temporal label tells us precisely nothing about whether Hindush and Magadha constituted separate civilisations.
Small correction though, vedic era is hundreds of years after the arrival of steppe nomads. The steppe nomads are not vedic.

which is all that was meant by this qualifier in the above context, distinguishing it temporally from indus script, which was clearly "pre-vedic".

No. You claimed the absence of one proved cultural discontinuity. The ASI itself says that between Indus writing and the ashokan inscriptions the writing situation is unknown, while literary references suggest writing and pre ahokan knowledge of brahmi remains possible. 'Unknown' is not evidence for your claimed hard boundary

I don't need to prove a negative. You prove to me there was a native script in the Indus Valley before the Mauryan empire controlled it (which was the first point of imperial contiguity between the old Achaemenid satrapies, then ruled by Seleucids after the Achaemenids fell) and the regions to the east that was ANYTHING SIMILAR to Brahmi. It may interest you to know that Brahmi script was read left to right, whereas IVC script was read right to left - they're already substantially different. Being a fan of Ashoka's magnanimous learnings, I expected you of all people to know this much. The point being made is that Magadhan script was Brahmi, which has no conceivable roots in IVC script.

Yes. And? Different scripts do not establish different civilisations. Ashoka's own empire used Brahmi in much of the subcontinent and right to left Kharosthi in the northwest.

Nobody needs Brahmi to descend from Indus script for cultural continuity to exist. Britain changed from runes to latin script without becoming a different civilisation every time its writing system changed.

Stolen from whom?? Were you paying attention to the thread and our discussion...stolen from Pakistan of course!

I chuckle everytime I read that. The name India was being used for more than two millennia before Pakistan existed. Pakistan cannot retrospectively own a name that predates the Pakistani state by millennia.

And yes, it is a theft of intellectual property that leads to genuine economic harm. Once definitions are established accurately, everything associated with coterminous Pakistan historically is NOT associated with the Secular Republic of India, BY DEFINITION. The problem is obvious. Call it "saltiness" if that helps you cope but that top tier whinging won't stop the truth from being written. I understand you fear this because of all the stolen property your Secular Republic stands to lose as a result!

Ancient geographical history is not Pakistans intellectual property. Harappa, Gandhara, Vedic traditions, Buddhism, the Mauryas etc. are historical subjects, not copyrighted national assets allocated by the Radcliffe Award.

India was a name given by foreigners to coterminous Pakistan, then erroneously extrapolated to incorporate eastern territories. Those eastern territories than had the nerve to retroactively "claim" Pakistan and its heritage!

No such historical “definition” exists. Modern borders don't retroactively sever ancient historical geography. Takshashila can simultaneously belong to the ancient history of the Indian subcontinent and to the national heritage of modern Pakistan.

It is a case of civilisational PARASITISM and we shall treat it aggressively.

Too little too late. I have said before. This sudden interest in "Ancient Pakistan" is a healthy one if it can preserve some artefacts from your own populace who is more interested in defacing things.

Missed this one...

Look we don't care what you call your primordial milieu of a nation state as long as it doesn't impinge on our rightful legacy and heritage. It's that simple.

You evidently care enormously because your argument requires India to rename itself so that Pakistan can claim exclusive possession of particular strands of pre 1947 history. Pakistan is a state for 70+ years, just like India. If you want you can rename yourself as "original India" for all I care because there is nothing stopping you from doing it.

Greece fought for decades against FYROM for EXACTLY THIS REASON. There is precedence over the importance of this matter. I'm not just fahrting in a wind tunnel for laughs here.

The Macedonia dispute proves that modern states can dispute names and heritage it does not establish that modern states obtain exclusive ownership of all antiquity occurring inside their current borders. The eventual settlement was a negotiated modern political agreement, not a universal law of historical nomenclature.

Go with Bharat. Or Gangadesh as has been suggested. How about Marathastan (please credit me appropriately if you go with this one)?

And this rather gives the game away. You've moved from historical analysis to telling another sovereign country what name would make your preferred Pakistani national narrative more comfortable.
India chose India, constitutionally also Bharat. Pakistan chose Pakistan. Neither side gets to rewrite antiquity merely because the other's name is politically inconvenient.

 

[Master Chief]

Big deal. Later it did and you can't freeze it neither can it is violating any rules or laws. But then again where is the proof that both had different cultures?

Plenty of proof the Indus was not aligned with the lands to the east. Where would you like to sample evidence from?

1. Genetically AND linguistically AND religiously not the same at the time of the Harappans.

2. Culturally rivals at the time of Alexander (nobody came to help Porus when Alexander arrived yet the Nandas could easily have turned the odds against Alexander had they aligned with Porus).

3. Linguistically different at the time of the Achaemenids.

We can highlight differences in religion, genetic composition, and culture once again during the medieval era but I'm sure you are familiar with those.

YOU ARE FORCING TOGETHER DISPARATE AND SUBSTANTIVELY DISTINCT PEOPLES TO RETROFIT THE POLITICAL CONCEPT OF "INDIA" ONTO A GEOGRAPHIC DESCRIPTOR.

Nobody gives a shit about if it was unified seperated by political boundaries. If it did then historical accounts would have used different names for each political entity.

I just explained to you above why I do give a shit. You have overlaid the political concept of "India" (bharata as per your scriptures) onto a geographic descriptor.

So what? My argument has never required continuous political unity. Political fragmentation does not invalidate a geographical or civilisational category.

Your argument is simply your subjective opinion. I have presented DIFFERENCES between the very nature of these tribes, their composition, their behaviour, their beliefs, their writing, their technology, their influences....all over many different eras of history. I have pointed out their "unification" is based on a geographic descriptor for a continent, imposed by foreigners. Who squatting in Persepolis or London or even on secondment to Pataliputra bequeathed the name "India" to your people, as anything other than a convenient descriptor for "you brown lot"? You neglect this reality. India is not different to Europe or Africa in this context. When Europeans arrived in Africa, they saw varying shades of black and jungles as far as the eye could see - this is why they gave it one descriptor and retained that descriptor for what lay beyond and yet undiscovered! That "Bharata" is mentioned in scriptures is of no consequence because it was a simple mythology of a supposedly unified land mass that was never realised! It doesn't mean it existed or that all these tribes in South Asia were somehow unified. I hope you AT LEAST understand that the Emperor Bharata is a mythological being.

Except Europe never became a sovereign state called Europe in 1947 whose predecessor administration was already officially called the Government of India. You're comparing a continent with an actual successor state while pretending political nomenclature doesn't matter.

Hitler is irrelevant to the naming question. Calling Gandhara or Magadha parts of Ancient India does not mean Delhi had a sovereign right to conquer them. Historical geography is not entitlement to imperial rule. What kind of argument is this Reich blah blah blah. Where did I say we should unify India?

Europe was occupied by Nazis and Hitler wanted to give it a single unifying name "Greater Germanic Reich". When he failed to achieve this, the independent nations became independent individual nations again.

Your post here actually demonstrates an agreement with me that barring forcible conquest of South Asia (by the British in this case and others before them), there is no unified polity present. Don't show me the map in 1947. Show me the map just before the East India Company fired their first shot (hint: there ain't no unified "India" but lots of little polities within a CONTINENTAL LAND MASS CALLED "INDIA").

For the nth time India is an exonym in its Greek form. Its ultimate source, however, is the indigenous Sindhu. Nobody disputes either fact. An exonym being foreign does not make the geography it eventually denotes illegitimate.
And great example bringing hellas, here hellas itself expanded from a more restricted designation into a collective Greek one. Thucydides explicitly describes the name hellenes as gradually spreading among communities rather than existing eternally with its later scope. Your Greek example therefore demonstrates that geographical ethnic names can expand.

Ancient Greek identity was not established by genomic testing. Scholarship treats Greek identity as historically constructed through language, religion, genealogy, sanctuaries and other collective institutions. Political and local identities remained extremely strong.

Ermm.. it's not the exonymity itself that renders "India" illegitimate - it's the fact that you have misinterpreted and misrepresented that exonym. Don't put words into my mouth. Exonymity is not a crime and is nothing to be ashamed of for any nation. Stealing another nation's legacy by the false utility of a name (WHETHER EXONYM OR ENDONYM) is the issue here.

And yes, I know Hellenes "expanded" from their original origin point. Of course they did. Duhh. My point is that your "India" did not arise from the real "India". The legacy of the IVC was usurped. You seem to repeatedly claim I am making arguments that I have not made. We all know what this practice is called and why it is deployed.

And with that in mind, Modern Indian subcon populations themselves derive in varying proportions from overlapping IVC related, AASI and Steppe related ancestries. Genetics shows mixtures and clines what it does not show is a biological wall conveniently matching your proposed "ancient Pakistan" and India frontier.

Also, this migration point you made makes your argument stranger. You're acknowledging major prehistoric population movement and mixture across the very northwest gangetic geography you simultaneously describe as a hard civilisational divide.

Remind yourself of the history. There was a biological, religious, linguistic, and ethnic wall when the IVC existed. The IVC then collapsed. Genomes then naturally diffused outwards to what we see today. So whether you like it or not, the Harappan genome was NOT shared by gangetics originally. I have already said clearly that genetics, linguistics, culture, religion, all contributed to the differences between our peoples, each to varying degrees in different eras of human history. Shared MODERN genomes across modern Pakistan and modern North India are STILL not inclusive of vast swathes of the Secular Republic's territory (the whole south!) even to this day. The ORIGINAL genomes were categorcially different (you need to re-read the works of Reich if you still haven't figured this much out)...

PRE-HARAPPAN MATURE PHASE IVC:
-- AASI: 15-35%. IRANIAN RELATED: 65-85%.

PRE-HARAPPAN MATURE PHASE GANGETICS:
-- AASI: 50-70%. IRANIAN RELATED: MINIMAL TO NO INITIAL PRESENCE.

The diffusion of Iranian genomes and mixing of Iranian DNA EASTWARDS across the Gangetic region occurred AFTER THE IVC FELL.

Want me to say it over and over?

Then you've conceded that an indigenous supra-regional name existed. Whether you personally prefer Bharat to India doesn't demonstrate that the latter geographical term is erroneous.

Conceded not 1 inch mate. The latter geographical term is not of itself erroneous (why shouldn't westerners, or indeed anyone, refer to areas of the world in simplified terms for their own practical purposes?) but you deploying it for any political entity east of the Indus categorically IS ERRONEOUS. Using the term "Bharat" is not erroneous in this context. You will have to work harder to pick holes in my argument. Take a couple of days off work if needed. This stuff is more important than selling antivirus software bundles.

No. You claimed the absence of one proved cultural discontinuity. The ASI itself says that between Indus writing and the ashokan inscriptions the writing situation is unknown, while literary references suggest writing and pre ahokan knowledge of brahmi remains possible. 'Unknown' is not evidence for your claimed hard boundary

Yep. Unknown. So you can't use an "unknown" or a void in knowledge to prove continuity. Therefore the default stands, that no continuity existed until proven otherwise. We prove the continuity of all historical empires and nations with hard evidence, not by way of a gap in evidence.

Huh? Then withdraw it as evidence of a hard cultural boundary, because a temporal label tells us precisely nothing about whether Hindush and Magadha constituted separate civilisations.
Small correction though, vedic era is hundreds of years after the arrival of steppe nomads. The steppe nomads are not vedic.

Nothing to withdraw here since I have pointed out that there is no known script for the period in question, while Magadha had a known script. I don't see the problem. You can't use the absence of something to prove something existed in continuity with something else.

Yes. And? Different scripts do not establish different civilisations. Ashoka's own empire used Brahmi in much of the subcontinent and right to left Kharosthi in the northwest.

Nobody needs Brahmi to descend from Indus script for cultural continuity to exist. Britain changed from runes to latin script without becoming a different civilisation every time its writing system changed.

Difference in scripts does very much create a rationale for the existence of two different political entities. In the context of multiple other layers of identity variance between the peoples in question, there is ample evidence of independence of these regions except when forced together under the imperial yoke.

The name India was being used for more than two millennia before Pakistan existed. Pakistan cannot retrospectively own a name that predates the Pakistani state by millennia.

"INDIA" was used in only 1 known context: As a geographical descriptor by westerners. Just like "Africa". Pakistan can very much own this name, just as any modern nation state lays exclusive claim to its progenitor civilisation. Can FYROM claim to call itself "Macedonia"?

Ancient geographical history is not Pakistans intellectual property. Harappa, Gandhara, Vedic traditions, Buddhism, the Mauryas etc. are historical subjects, not copyrighted national assets allocated by the Radcliffe Award.

Of course you may study the history of Pakistan. You can even worship it if you see fit or imitate it (giving due and explicit reference in the process) but you cannot simply usurp it and claim it as your own (and worse still, deny Pakistan's right over it).

The rest of your posts have already been answered by my responses above. Happy reading!

 

[nahtanbob]

You're recycling the same old argument. Not sure why Germania is cited as an example of disparate cultures forming a single polity, as the features of this supposed analogue are quite different from what we see in South Asia.

Germania was the Latin name for Deutschland. Deutschland was the endonym for the Rhineland germanic peoples who resisted Roman rule together (no foreign power imposed the name upon them). The Roman advance politically unified these once warring peoples. Beyond that, they shared languages, DNA, and cultures. This is already substantially different to the South Asian experience. You can take any period in history you like, IVC, Alexander, Maurya, Mughals, British - the traits shared between germanic peoples (DNA, linguistics, culture, religion, even endonymy) did not (to varying degrees) align for South Asian peoples.

Even having said all that, Germanic peoples NEVER actually unified entirely. Hitler didn't even manage it. Anglo-Saxons are a germanic people and they spread far and wide, so how on earth is it even possible for them to unify into a single nation state?

Here's what "India" looked like when white colonisers decided to take over. You're sitting here telling me this was some "unified" front against "non-natives"? (See below)

You can go further back.

Did the Nandas suggest a united defence with Porus against Alexander's advance, or were the Nandas and Porus actually rivals, so much so that Porus was left to his fate despite being supposedly "native barhadari"?

At NO SIGNIFICANT POINT in known history (Harappan era, post-Harappan era, Mauryan era, Mughal era, British colonial era..) can the claim be justifiably and evidently made that the tribes of the Indus and the tribes of the Ganga (+southies) were EVER a united political entity. On the contrary, they rivalled each other (as did MANY other groups within south Asia) and even REPEATEDLY AND CONSISTENTLY plotted each other's downfall with help from Europeans!

Shall we discuss the Marathas and their "unified defence of mother India" next?? Tipu might want to join the chat.

View attachment 213511

Incorrect map - British were real rulers of Bengal and Carnatic

 

[Vikramaditya1]

Plenty of proof the Indus was not aligned with the lands to the east. Where would you like to sample evidence from?

1. Genetically AND linguistically AND religiously not the same at the time of the Harappans.

I think I have said it before somewhere else, that if you so wish to seperate, you must start arguing for seperate civilization and artefacts found in Pakistan side and Indian side. Rakhigarhi, Dholavira, Kalibangan and other sites in modern India would then be “our” civilizational remains, while Harappa and Mohenjo daro would be yours. But you object to that as well.

2. Culturally rivals at the time of Alexander (nobody came to help Porus when Alexander arrived yet the Nandas could easily have turned the odds against Alexander had they aligned with Porus).

Why would Nandas fight some frontier wars which clearly Alexander didn't win decisively. Nandas were not stupid. But why not speak about the Taxilan Ambhi who betrayed king Puru, sided with Alexander? Not helping is one thing, betraying and siding with the enemy? So Prus and Ambhi must be different civilization.

3. Linguistically different at the time of the Achaemenids.

We can highlight differences in religion, genetic composition, and culture once again during the medieval era but I'm sure you are familiar with those.

On one hand you say their script wasn't deciphered on the other, you confidently assert that the Harappans were linguistically different from the populations to their east. How exactly have you established that? We don't know what language or languages the Harappans spoke. In fact, there isn't even universal agreement that the Indus signs encode language in the manner of a conventional writing system. So what evidence allows you to turn an unknown Harappan language into evidence for a linguistic boundary?

YOU ARE FORCING TOGETHER DISPARATE AND SUBSTANTIVELY DISTINCT PEOPLES TO RETROFIT THE POLITICAL CONCEPT OF "INDIA" ONTO A GEOGRAPHIC DESCRIPTOR.

Different kingdoms, dialects, traditions and material cultures are exactly what we expect across a region this enormous. Your burden is not to demonstrate differences, nobody disputes those. Your burden is to demonstrate that those differences created the hard civilizational boundary you keep asserting at the Indus. That's a very different proposition.

I just explained to you above why I do give a shit. You have overlaid the political concept of "India" (bharata as per your scriptures) onto a geographic descriptor.

No, repeating again India is an exonym. Like Archemenids gave an exonym expanded by Greeks. In my eyes both Archemendis and Greeks are at an equal footing.
You tried to freeze Archemenids in time and made a quantum jump to 1947.

Your argument is simply your subjective opinion. I have presented DIFFERENCES between the very nature of these tribes, their composition, their behaviour, their beliefs, their writing, their technology, their influences....all over many different eras of history. I have pointed out their "unification" is based on a geographic descriptor for a continent, imposed by foreigners. Who squatting in Persepolis or London or even on secondment to Pataliputra bequeathed the name "India" to your people, as anything other than a convenient descriptor for "you brown lot"? You neglect this reality. India is not different to Europe or Africa in this context. When Europeans arrived in Africa, they saw varying shades of black and jungles as far as the eye could see - this is why they gave it one descriptor and retained that descriptor for what lay beyond and yet undiscovered! That "Bharata" is mentioned in scriptures is of no consequence because it was a simple mythology of a supposedly unified land mass that was never realised! It doesn't mean it existed or that all these tribes in South Asia were somehow unified. I hope you AT LEAST understand that the Emperor Bharata is a mythological being.

Your evidences to the same are unknowable. Indus script is undeciphered and then assert confidently that Harappans were linguistically different.
Then you go on to confuse geographical and cultural imagination with political sovereignity. Bharata mentioned in Scriptures is of great consequence because most of the recorded history beyond IVC is in the scriptures. But they weren't talking about unification rather battles in which Bharata became victorious.

Besides that geographical names routinely derived from legendary, tribal and dynastic traditions.

Europe was occupied by Nazis and Hitler wanted to give it a single unifying name "Greater Germanic Reich". When he failed to achieve this, the independent nations became independent individual nations again.

Europe existed before Hitler, during Hitler and after Hitler regardless of whether one empire controleld it. Hitlers failure did not invalidate "Europe". Political fragmentarion does not demonstrate Indian subcon was meaningless or the name "India".

Your post here actually demonstrates an agreement with me that barring forcible conquest of South Asia (by the British in this case and others before them), there is no unified polity present. Don't show me the map in 1947. Show me the map just before the East India Company fired their first shot (hint: there ain't no unified "India" but lots of little polities within a CONTINENTAL LAND MASS CALLED "INDIA").

Congratulations on figuring out political fragmentation and proving that political fragmentation is just political nothing more. It does not prove absence of a larger geographical identity called India. You keep answering this nation state question I'm not asking.

Ermm.. it's not the exonymity itself that renders "India" illegitimate - it's the fact that you have misinterpreted and misrepresented that exonym. Don't put words into my mouth. Exonymity is not a crime and is nothing to be ashamed of for any nation. Stealing another nation's legacy by the false utility of a name (WHETHER EXONYM OR ENDONYM) is the issue here.

I haven't, Archemenids did. Should've called the land Bharat, but that exonym stuck and here we are. You can't steal something given to you in 400BCE.

And yes, I know Hellenes "expanded" from their original origin point. Of course they did. Duhh. My point is that your "India" did not arise from the real "India". The legacy of the IVC was usurped. You seem to repeatedly claim I am making arguments that I have not made. We all know what this practice is called and why it is deployed.

Going by your argument real India in itself is misclassification. Naming a region based off rig vedic rivers.
You can't simply bring one group and rules for your convenience then argue that the next group is wrong when both are equally responsible for this.

Remind yourself of the history. There was a biological, religious, linguistic, and ethnic wall when the IVC existed. The IVC then collapsed. Genomes then naturally diffused outwards to what we see today. So whether you like it or not, the Harappan genome was NOT shared by gangetics originally. I have already said clearly that genetics, linguistics, culture, religion, all contributed to the differences between our peoples, each to varying degrees in different eras of human history. Shared MODERN genomes across modern Pakistan and modern North India are STILL not inclusive of vast swathes of the Secular Republic's territory (the whole south!) even to this day. The ORIGINAL genomes were categorcially different (you need to re-read the works of Reich if you still haven't figured this much out)...

To prove that "wall" you need DNA evidence from your side. and we have all the time in the world. Let's wait for DNA evidence from your sides.

Narasimhan et al found a Cline rather than one homogeneous Harappan genotype and show that populations related to it later contributed massively to both ANI and ASI. Now find me Gangetic samples from before mature Harappan period from which you derive this 50-70% AASI.

PRE-HARAPPAN MATURE PHASE IVC:
-- AASI: 15-35%. IRANIAN RELATED: 65-85%.

PRE-HARAPPAN MATURE PHASE GANGETICS:
-- AASI: 50-70%. IRANIAN RELATED: MINIMAL TO NO INITIAL PRESENCE.

The diffusion of Iranian genomes and mixing of Iranian DNA EASTWARDS across the Gangetic region occurred AFTER THE IVC FELL.

Want me to say it over and over?

Biology wizard with interest in genomic studies, writes like that?
Narasimhan et al. doesn't give a clean "65-85% Iranian 15-35% AASI" figure for "the IVC." The published range for the Indus Periphery Cline is much wider and differently centered roughly 45 to 82% Iranian related and 11 to 50% AASI ancestry, and the single high coverage genome in Rakhigarhi, I6113 modeled at about 73% +/- 6% Iranian related ancestry with the rest AASI (or East Asian related, depending on the model).

Second part is the most hilarious in here. The "AASI 50-70% gangetic saar", is from Iran Ganj Dareh, Indus Periphery BMAC outlier sites and post IVC Swat valey samples about a millennium later in the post IVC Swat valley. There is no post IVC gangetic DNA samples. The only ones we found in India are from Ghaggar-Hakra saraswati paleochannel in Rakhigarhi. And we all know that results.

The problem is we can't defenitely figure out who's who based on DNA of a very few individuals and draw x% this y% that, the more you try to, the funnier it becomes. The numbers are very few in fact we have more neanderthal DNA studies than we can do on Sindhu Saraswati sites.

Conceded not 1 inch mate. The latter geographical term is not of itself erroneous (why shouldn't westerners, or indeed anyone, refer to areas of the world in simplified terms for their own practical purposes?) but you deploying it for any political entity east of the Indus categorically IS ERRONEOUS. Using the term "Bharat" is not erroneous in this context. You will have to work harder to pick holes in my argument. Take a couple of days off work if needed. This stuff is more important than selling antivirus software bundles.

It was rather quite easy to pick holes in your argument. You seem to be projecting, when talking about taking days off. That stressful huh?

Yep. Unknown. So you can't use an "unknown" or a void in knowledge to prove continuity. Therefore the default stands, that no continuity existed until proven otherwise. We prove the continuity of all historical empires and nations with hard evidence, not by way of a gap in evidence.

“Unknown” does not mean “different until proven otherwise.” It means unknown and this isn't some trivial technicality. The language encoded by the Indus signs if they encode speech at all remains unknown, with competing Dravidian, Indo Aryan, Para Munda and other hypotheses. There is even continuing disagreement over whether the signs constitute linguistic writing in the conventional sense.
Nobody needs to demonstrate that Harappa and Magadha were one political or linguistic entity in 2500 BCE for the later geographical concept of India to exist.

Nothing to withdraw here since I have pointed out that there is no known script for the period in question, while Magadha had a known script. I don't see the problem. You can't use the absence of something to prove something existed in continuity with something else.

Are you always this confused?
There are no surviving inscriptions from Achaemenid period "Magadha" either. So what exactly are you comparing?
If you are comparing Magadhi Prakrit then there is Gandhari Prakrit to compare to, if you're comparing Brahmi then there is Kharoshti (yes written right to left) in Gandhara to compare to. Do you really want to compare scripts and languages to prove civilizational divide? You wouldn't like the result.

Difference in scripts does very much create a rationale for the existence of two different political entities. In the context of multiple other layers of identity variance between the peoples in question, there is ample evidence of independence of these regions except when forced together under the imperial yoke.

More interpretations than hard facts on civilizational divide. You sneak in this argument "therefore they could never belong to a larger geographical/civilizational category later called India." Which is a nice try but that's just your rhetorical argument.

"INDIA" was used in only 1 known context: As a geographical descriptor by westerners. Just like "Africa". Pakistan can very much own this name, just as any modern nation state lays exclusive claim to its progenitor civilisation. Can FYROM claim to call itself "Macedonia"?

Africa was geographically called Africa despite containing Egyptians, Berbers, Nubians, Ethiopians, Bantu speaking peoples and thousands of independent political societies.
Nobody asks "Show me the African emperor who politically unified the continent, otherwise Africa wasn't real"

If you apply this logic, how can IVC be called IVC? Larger and older sites of IVC exist outside Pakistan yet IVC itself is called Indus Valley based on British given nomenclature.

You cannot simultaneously argue that the IVC constitutes Pakistan's exclusive “progenitor civilization” and then discover that major pieces of your supposedly exclusive progenitor civilization are physically sitting across the international border in India.

Of course you may study the history of Pakistan. You can even worship it if you see fit or imitate it (giving due and explicit reference in the process) but you cannot simply usurp it and claim it as your own (and worse still, deny Pakistan's right over it).

The rest of your posts have already been answered by my responses above. Happy reading!

Nobody is claiming the history of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan as Indian history.

 

[RealNapster]

Question:

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

Answer :

Modi Ji.

 

[Master Chief]

I think I have said it before somewhere else, that if you so wish to seperate, you must start arguing for seperate civilization and artefacts found in Pakistan side and Indian side.

You can hold them by all means but we will demand them back and we will remain the progenitor nation state. Elgin's Marbles.

Why would Nandas fight some frontier wars which clearly Alexander didn't win decisively. Nandas were not stupid. But why not speak about the Taxilan Ambhi who betrayed king Puru, sided with Alexander? Not helping is one thing, betraying and siding with the enemy? So Prus and Ambhi must be different civilization.

Which proves MY case for there being no "cultural dharmic alignment of brothers saar!" between IVC and that which lay to the east. Thank you.

Biology wizard with interest in genomic studies, writes like that?
Narasimhan et al. doesn't give a clean "65-85% Iranian 15-35% AASI" figure for "the IVC." The published range for the Indus Periphery Cline is much wider and differently centered roughly 45 to 82% Iranian related and 11 to 50% AASI ancestry, and the single high coverage genome in Rakhigarhi, I6113 modeled at about 73% +/- 6% Iranian related ancestry with the rest AASI (or East Asian related, depending on the model).

Second part is the most hilarious in here. The "AASI 50-70% gangetic saar", is from Iran Ganj Dareh, Indus Periphery BMAC outlier sites and post IVC Swat valey samples about a millennium later in the post IVC Swat valley. There is no post IVC gangetic DNA samples. The only ones we found in India are from Ghaggar-Hakra saraswati paleochannel in Rakhigarhi. And we all know that results.

The problem is we can't defenitely figure out who's who based on DNA of a very few individuals and draw x% this y% that, the more you try to, the funnier it becomes. The numbers are very few in fact we have more neanderthal DNA studies than we can do on Sindhu Saraswati sites.

OK jeetistani, we can go to town on this as clearly you have no clue what the data shows.

Narisimhan (2019):

"We document a distinctive ancestry profile—~45 to 82% Iranian farmer–related and ~11 to 50% AASI (with negligible Anatolian farmer–related admixture)—present at two sites in cultural contact with the Indus Valley Culture (IVC)"

---> "IN CULTURAL CONTACT". Right next door.

He goes on to expand on his model of three distinct sources for South Asian ancestry...

"Three ancestry clines that succeeded each other in time in South Asia. We identify a distinctive trio of source populations that fits geographically and temporally diverse South Asians since the Bronze Age: a mixture of AASI, an Indus Periphery Cline group with predominantly Iranian farmer–related ancestry, and Central_Steppe_MLBA. Two-way clines that are well modeled as mixtures of pairs of populations that are themselves formed of these three sources succeeded each other in time: before 2000 BCE, the Indus Periphery Cline had no detectable Steppe ancestry, beginning after 2000 BCE the Steppe Cline, and finally the Modern Indian Cline."

"The ASI and ANI arose as Indus Periphery Cline people mixed with groups to the north and east".

Whom do we think these "groups to the east" might be?

Yes you can bring up Swat (the LATE TRANSECT data specifically) as an outlier for AASI proportionality all you like, but it is precisely that - an outlier.

"ASI were not fully formed at the time of the IVC and instead must have continued to form through mixture after its decline as material culture typical of the IVC spread eastward (53) and Indus Periphery Cline ancestry mixed with people of less West Eurasian relatedness."

---> LESS WEST EURASIAN RELATEDNESS.



As for AASI, man I can't help you if you're going to deny this simple reality of gangetic constitution:

"Our results thus show that the majority of the ancestry of present-day Indians derives from a major migration event out of Africa that occurred 50,000 years ago."

50,000 years of Evolutionary History of India: Insights from ~2,700 Whole Genome Sequences - PMC

India has been underrepresented in whole genome sequencing studies. We generated 2,762 high coverage genomes from India—including individuals from most geographic regions, speakers of all major languages, and tribal and caste groups—providing a ...

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

If you are actually going to squat here and claim that pre-IVC gangetic populations were somehow not AASI predominant, then nobody can help you any further.

We can talk about the Narisimhan (2019) study at length of you wish.

This is directly from the paper, not the AI gobbledegook that you try to pass off as instructive, regarding ANI and ASI popoulations:

"By sequencing 523 ancient humans, we show that the primary source of ancestry in modern South Asians is a prehistoric genetic gradient between people related to early hunter-gatherers of Iran and Southeast Asia. After the Indus Valley Civilization’s decline, its people mixed with individuals in the southeast to form one of the two main ancestral populations of South Asia, whose direct descendants live in southern India. Simultaneously, they mixed with descendants of Steppe pastoralists who, starting around 4000 years ago, spread via Central Asia to form the other main ancestral population. The Steppe ancestry in South Asia has the same profile as that in Bronze Age Eastern Europe, tracking a movement of people that affected both regions and that likely spread the distinctive features shared between Indo-Iranian and Balto-Slavic languages"

50,000 years of Evolutionary History of India: Insights from ~2,700 Whole Genome Sequences - PMC

India has been underrepresented in whole genome sequencing studies. We generated 2,762 high coverage genomes from India—including individuals from most geographic regions, speakers of all major languages, and tribal and caste groups—providing a ...

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002929707605412

No, repeating again India is an exonym. Like Archemenids gave an exonym expanded by Greeks. In my eyes both Archemendis and Greeks are at an equal footing.
You tried to freeze Archemenids in time and made a quantum jump to 1947.

So you're now basing your opinion on....your opinion? Thanks for this contribution.

Your evidences to the same are unknowable. Indus script is undeciphered and then assert confidently that Harappans were linguistically different.
Then you go on to confuse geographical and cultural imagination with political sovereignity. Bharata mentioned in Scriptures is of great consequence because most of the recorded history beyond IVC is in the scriptures. But they weren't talking about unification rather battles in which Bharata became victorious.

Erm...I am simply stating the OBVIOUS - you cannot use a VOID, THE ABSENCE OF INFORMATION to prove your inference. This is fallacious. And then you show your true saffron colours by declaring scriptures to be "recorded history". If you're going to be disingenuous and resort to scriptures as independently verified historical fact, then what's even the point of discussing with me?

Europe existed before Hitler, during Hitler and after Hitler regardless of whether one empire controleld it. Hitlers failure did not invalidate "Europe". Political fragmentarion does not demonstrate Indian subcon was meaningless or the name "India".

Yes. Europe did and does and will exist AS A CONTINENT, NOT A SINGLE COUNTRY. Hint: same applies for the land mass you squat on today.

It was rather quite easy to pick holes in your argument. You seem to be projecting, when talking about taking days off. That stressful huh?

Always a pleasure, never a chore!

“Unknown” does not mean “different until proven otherwise.” It means unknown and this isn't some trivial technicality

Yes, "unknown" means no evidence exists, therefore a null hypothesis applies.

The null hypothesis is that different groups had different scripts, PARTICULARLY so when the known and undeciphered progenitor script in the region of the IVC is clearly NOT the same as the known and deciphered script further east. It's pretty obvious really.

Nobody needs to demonstrate that Harappa and Magadha were one political or linguistic entity in 2500 BCE for the later geographical concept of India to exist.

We have demonstrated without doubt that they cannot be proved to be the same entity. Therefore, what right does Magadha (et al) have to absorb Harappa into its future nationhood plans?

Are you always this confused?
There are no surviving inscriptions from Achaemenid period "Magadha" either. So what exactly are you comparing?
If you are comparing Magadhi Prakrit then there is Gandhari Prakrit to compare to, if you're comparing Brahmi then there is Kharoshti (yes written right to left) in Gandhara to compare to. Do you really want to compare scripts and languages to prove civilizational divide? You wouldn't like the result.

You cite whatever you wish to cite. Nobody has stopped you from embarking on whatever tangent you see fit to embark upon.

Can you demonstrate linguistic contiguity between Magadha and Harappa before the post-IVC era?

You've mentioned Kharosthi as another one of your "outlier proves a rule saar!" type flexes. Yes, used in a POCKET of the IVC due to trade connections with eastern realms. Nothing unusual about that and it remains an outlier, an exception (right to left) that proves the rule of Brahmi script. Btw, Kharosthi is related but is not strictly a brahmi script. So what exactly is your point? In fact... it Is probably derived from Persian script, later borrowed by Ashoka to help write his confessional monologues.

Africa was geographically called Africa despite containing Egyptians, Berbers, Nubians, Ethiopians, Bantu speaking peoples and thousands of independent political societies.
Nobody asks "Show me the African emperor who politically unified the continent, otherwise Africa wasn't real"

Yes, and Africa is a continent, like India is. Nobody said it should be unified in order to be declared a "real construct". Of course Africa is real - as a continent. You are putting words into my mouth. I am saying: to create a NATION STATE CALLED "AFRICA" then all tribes of that continent need to be demonstrably unified in a political sense, not including forced union by a third party.

 

[Musings]

You can hold them by all means but we will demand them back and we will remain the progenitor nation state. Elgin's Marbles.


Which proves MY case for there being no "cultural dharmic alignment of brothers saar!" between IVC and that which lay to the east. Thank you.



OK jeetistani, we can go to town on this as clearly you have no clue what the data shows.

Narisimhan (2019):

"We document a distinctive ancestry profile—~45 to 82% Iranian farmer–related and ~11 to 50% AASI (with negligible Anatolian farmer–related admixture)—present at two sites in cultural contact with the Indus Valley Culture (IVC)"

---> "IN CULTURAL CONTACT". Right next door.

He goes on to expand on his model of three distinct sources for South Asian ancestry...

"Three ancestry clines that succeeded each other in time in South Asia. We identify a distinctive trio of source populations that fits geographically and temporally diverse South Asians since the Bronze Age: a mixture of AASI, an Indus Periphery Cline group with predominantly Iranian farmer–related ancestry, and Central_Steppe_MLBA. Two-way clines that are well modeled as mixtures of pairs of populations that are themselves formed of these three sources succeeded each other in time: before 2000 BCE, the Indus Periphery Cline had no detectable Steppe ancestry, beginning after 2000 BCE the Steppe Cline, and finally the Modern Indian Cline."

"The ASI and ANI arose as Indus Periphery Cline people mixed with groups to the north and east".

Whom do we think these "groups to the east" might be?

Yes you can bring up Swat (the LATE TRANSECT data specifically) as an outlier for AASI proportionality all you like, but it is precisely that - an outlier.

"ASI were not fully formed at the time of the IVC and instead must have continued to form through mixture after its decline as material culture typical of the IVC spread eastward (53) and Indus Periphery Cline ancestry mixed with people of less West Eurasian relatedness."

---> LESS WEST EURASIAN RELATEDNESS.



As for AASI, man I can't help you if you're going to deny this simple reality of gangetic constitution:

"Our results thus show that the majority of the ancestry of present-day Indians derives from a major migration event out of Africa that occurred 50,000 years ago."

50,000 years of Evolutionary History of India: Insights from ~2,700 Whole Genome Sequences - PMC

India has been underrepresented in whole genome sequencing studies. We generated 2,762 high coverage genomes from India—including individuals from most geographic regions, speakers of all major languages, and tribal and caste groups—providing a ...

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

If you are actually going to squat here and claim that pre-IVC gangetic populations were somehow not AASI predominant, then nobody can help you any further.

We can talk about the Narisimhan (2019) study at length of you wish.

This is directly from the paper, not the AI gobbledegook that you try to pass off as instructive, regarding ANI and ASI popoulations:

"By sequencing 523 ancient humans, we show that the primary source of ancestry in modern South Asians is a prehistoric genetic gradient between people related to early hunter-gatherers of Iran and Southeast Asia. After the Indus Valley Civilization’s decline, its people mixed with individuals in the southeast to form one of the two main ancestral populations of South Asia, whose direct descendants live in southern India. Simultaneously, they mixed with descendants of Steppe pastoralists who, starting around 4000 years ago, spread via Central Asia to form the other main ancestral population. The Steppe ancestry in South Asia has the same profile as that in Bronze Age Eastern Europe, tracking a movement of people that affected both regions and that likely spread the distinctive features shared between Indo-Iranian and Balto-Slavic languages"

50,000 years of Evolutionary History of India: Insights from ~2,700 Whole Genome Sequences - PMC

India has been underrepresented in whole genome sequencing studies. We generated 2,762 high coverage genomes from India—including individuals from most geographic regions, speakers of all major languages, and tribal and caste groups—providing a ...

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002929707605412

So you're now basing your opinion on....your opinion? Thanks for this contribution.



Erm...I am simply stating the OBVIOUS - you cannot use a VOID, THE ABSENCE OF INFORMATION to prove your inference. This is fallacious. And then you show your true saffron colours by declaring scriptures to be "recorded history". If you're going to be disingenuous and resort to scriptures as independently verified historical fact, then what's even the point of discussing with me?



Yes. Europe did and does and will exist AS A CONTINENT, NOT A SINGLE COUNTRY. Hint: same applies for the land mass you squat on today.



Always a pleasure, never a chore!



Yes, "unknown" means no evidence exists, therefore a null hypothesis applies.

The null hypothesis is that different groups had different scripts, PARTICULARLY so when the known and undeciphered progenitor script in the region of the IVC is clearly NOT the same as the known and deciphered script further east. It's pretty obvious really.



We have demonstrated without doubt that they cannot be proved to be the same entity. Therefore, what right does Magadha (et al) have to absorb Harappa into its future nationhood plans?



You cite whatever you wish to cite. Nobody has stopped you from embarking on whatever tangent you see fit to embark upon.

Can you demonstrate linguistic contiguity between Magadha and Harappa before the post-IVC era?

You've mentioned Kharosthi as another one of your "outlier proves a rule saar!" type flexes. Yes, used in a POCKET of the IVC due to trade connections with eastern realms. Nothing unusual about that and it remains an outlier, an exception (right to left) that proves the rule of Brahmi script. Btw, Kharosthi is related but is not strictly a brahmi script. So what exactly is your point? In fact... it Is probably derived from Persian script, later borrowed by Ashoka to help write his confessional monologues.



Yes, and Africa is a continent, like India is. Nobody said it should be unified in order to be declared a "real construct". Of course Africa is real - as a continent. You are putting words into my mouth. I am saying: to create a NATION STATE CALLED "AFRICA" then all tribes of that continent need to be demonstrably unified in a political sense, not including forced union by a third party.

Cracked it bro..................

 

[Vikramaditya1]

You can hold them by all means but we will demand them back and we will remain the progenitor nation state. Elgin's Marbles.

Haha poor analogy. Those sculptures came from a particular monument in Athens belonging to a historically identifiable Greek culture. The IVC was an archaeological civilization distributed across what are now both Pakistan and India. What exactly are you demanding back? Dholavira from Gujarat? Rakhigarhi from Haryana? We'll gladly send you dirt from these sights in packets so that you can thoroughly own them.

Which proves MY case for there being no "cultural dharmic alignment of brothers saar!" between IVC and that which lay to the east. Thank you.

Thanks for proving nothing and winning an argument with yourself.

OK jeetistani, we can go to town on this as clearly you have no clue what the data shows.

Narisimhan (2019):

"We document a distinctive ancestry profile—~45 to 82% Iranian farmer–related and ~11 to 50% AASI (with negligible Anatolian farmer–related admixture)—present at two sites in cultural contact with the Indus Valley Culture (IVC)"

---> "IN CULTURAL CONTACT". Right next door.

He goes on to expand on his model of three distinct sources for South Asian ancestry...

"Three ancestry clines that succeeded each other in time in South Asia. We identify a distinctive trio of source populations that fits geographically and temporally diverse South Asians since the Bronze Age: a mixture of AASI, an Indus Periphery Cline group with predominantly Iranian farmer–related ancestry, and Central_Steppe_MLBA. Two-way clines that are well modeled as mixtures of pairs of populations that are themselves formed of these three sources succeeded each other in time: before 2000 BCE, the Indus Periphery Cline had no detectable Steppe ancestry, beginning after 2000 BCE the Steppe Cline, and finally the Modern Indian Cline."

Yes. I literally quoted that range to you. But it doesn't establish your claim that
“PRE-HARAPPAN GANGETICS 50–70% AASI.” Which you conveniently tried to sneak in. Pakistani...
Where are those genomes?
Narasimhan's pre 2000 BCE Indus Periphery Cline consists of eleven outlier individuals from sites in cultural contact with the IVC; the authors model that cline as varying substantially in Iranian-related and AASI-related ancestry. They explicitly describe it as a cline, not your homogeneous “65–85% Iranian / 15–35% AASI IVC genotype.”
And since Narasimhan, we have an actual genome from Rakhigarhi itself, which falls on the same general icc related ancestry cline.
None of this produces an excavated pre-Mature Harappan Gangetic population with your claimed “50–70% AASI.”
So I'll ask again site? Date? Sample IDs?

"The ASI and ANI arose as Indus Periphery Cline people mixed with groups to the north and east".

Whom do we think these "groups to the east" might be?

Yes you can bring up Swat (the LATE TRANSECT data specifically) as an outlier for AASI proportionality all you like, but it is precisely that - an outlier.

"ASI were not fully formed at the time of the IVC and instead must have continued to form through mixture after its decline as material culture typical of the IVC spread eastward (53) and Indus Periphery Cline ancestry mixed with people of less West Eurasian relatedness."

---> LESS WEST EURASIAN RELATEDNESS.

To answer your question, people with greater AASI related lower West Eurasian related ancestry. Nobody disputes that. What I dispute is your transformation of that inference into
“Therefore pre IVC Gangetics were 50–70% AASI and minimal or no Iranian related ancestry.”
Narasimhan doesn't say that.
In fact the exact paragraph you quote says that ASI formation continued after the IVC decline as indus periphery cline ancestry mixed with people of less West eurasian relatednes. The study further concludes that both ANI and ASI received very substantial Indus Periphery related ancestry at least about 70% for ANI and 55% for ASI in their modelling.
“Less West Eurasian related” is a relative description of inferred source populations. It isn't an ancient DNA report saying:
“We excavated pre 2600 BCE Gangetics and measured them at 50 -70% aasi.”
Aren't you supposed to know these things. I have some dumb-ass B.Tech and I could figure it out. You converted an inferred demographic source into sampled individuals and then assigned them percentages the paper doesn't provide.

As for AASI, man I can't help you if you're going to deny this simple reality of gangetic constitution:

"Our results thus show that the majority of the ancestry of present-day Indians derives from a major migration event out of Africa that occurred 50,000 years ago."

50,000 years of Evolutionary History of India: Insights from ~2,700 Whole Genome Sequences - PMC

India has been underrepresented in whole genome sequencing studies. We generated 2,762 high coverage genomes from India—including individuals from most geographic regions, speakers of all major languages, and tribal and caste groups—providing a ...

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Irrelevant. All non african human populations descend from migrations out of Africa. That statement doesn't tell you what percentage of the population of the pre 2600 BCE Gangetic plain was AASI related.

If you are actually going to squat here and claim that pre-IVC gangetic populations were somehow not AASI predominant, then nobody can help you any further.

We can talk about the Narisimhan (2019) study at length of you wish.

This is directly from the paper, not the AI gobbledegook that you try to pass off as instructive, regarding ANI and ASI popoulations:

"By sequencing 523 ancient humans, we show that the primary source of ancestry in modern South Asians is a prehistoric genetic gradient between people related to early hunter-gatherers of Iran and Southeast Asia. After the Indus Valley Civilization’s decline, its people mixed with individuals in the southeast to form one of the two main ancestral populations of South Asia, whose direct descendants live in southern India. Simultaneously, they mixed with descendants of Steppe pastoralists who, starting around 4000 years ago, spread via Central Asia to form the other main ancestral population. The Steppe ancestry in South Asia has the same profile as that in Bronze Age Eastern Europe, tracking a movement of people that affected both regions and that likely spread the distinctive features shared between Indo-Iranian and Balto-Slavic languages"

50,000 years of Evolutionary History of India: Insights from ~2,700 Whole Genome Sequences - PMC

India has been underrepresented in whole genome sequencing studies. We generated 2,762 high coverage genomes from India—including individuals from most geographic regions, speakers of all major languages, and tribal and caste groups—providing a ...

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002929707605412

I'm not claiming they were not aadi rich. I'm saying you don't possess the ancient DNA needed to state your precise percentages as observed fact.
They may indeed have been substantially or predominantly aasi related.
But plausible reconstruction is not directly observed genome.
You made quantitative claims without evidence, you got called out, now running around with links proving what I already said.

So you're now basing your opinion on....your opinion? Thanks for this contribution.

This entire argument about nomenclature is "your opinion" it's not some widely accepted scholarly consensus. In your opinion India should do this and shouldn't have done that. It's on you not me.

Erm...I am simply stating the OBVIOUS - you cannot use a VOID, THE ABSENCE OF INFORMATION to prove your inference. This is fallacious. And then you show your true saffron colours by declaring scriptures to be "recorded history". If you're going to be disingenuous and resort to scriptures as independently verified historical fact, then what's even the point of discussing with me?

Correct. And neither can you. That is exactly my objection. We don't know the Harappan language. You are the one using the unknown language as positive evidence for linguistic discontinuity.
You're more interested in putting saffron color on me instead of understand the historical value of them. Ancient texts are historical sources especially when these are the only sources of information of Vedic era until Buddha. Historians extract information from the Vedas, Buddhist texts, Jain texts, epics afterall they are cultural artefacts of this land and only source of information of that particular era.
Nobody believe Emperor Bharata literally conquered the entire subcontinent from Afghan to South to observe that concepts of Bharatavarsha developed in indigenous geographical and cultural imagination.

Yes. Europe did and does and will exist AS A CONTINENT, NOT A SINGLE COUNTRY. Hint: same applies for the land mass you squat on today.

Great. Exactly like I said political fragmentation does not invalidate a geographical identity. Ancient India did not need to be one sovereign state for India to function as a geographical designation. At least some positive change in this discourse.

Yes, "unknown" means no evidence exists, therefore a null hypothesis applies.

The null hypothesis is that different groups had different scripts, PARTICULARLY so when the known and undeciphered progenitor script in the region of the IVC is clearly NOT the same as the known and deciphered script further east. It's pretty obvious really.

You don't get to choose your preferred historical conclusion, name it the null hypothesis, and then demand that everyone disprove it. Apply basic logic here, evidence doesn't reveal what language Harappans spoke, logical conclusion is Harappan language is unknown. Not the Harappan language differed from eastern languages.
Absence of surviving inscriptions does not establish that two populations had different scripts.

We have demonstrated without doubt that they cannot be proved to be the same entity. Therefore, what right does Magadha (et al) have to absorb Harappa into its future nationhood plans?

Huh???

You cite whatever you wish to cite. Nobody has stopped you from embarking on whatever tangent you see fit to embark upon.

Can you demonstrate linguistic contiguity between Magadha and Harappa before the post-IVC era?

Wtf are you even talking about. Did you just made up an argument and asking me to answer why I made that argument? I should demonstrate linguistic contiguity between events that are some 2000 years apart? Nobody claimed Harappa and Magadha were the same political entity.

You have been playing around with this chronological sleight of hand which I objected to before.

You've mentioned Kharosthi as another one of your "outlier proves a rule saar!" type flexes. Yes, used in a POCKET of the IVC due to trade connections with eastern realms. Nothing unusual about that and it remains an outlier, an exception (right to left) that proves the rule of Brahmi script. Btw, Kharosthi is related but is not strictly a brahmi script. So what exactly is your point? In fact... it Is probably derived from Persian script, later borrowed by Ashoka to help write his confessional monologues.

Oh really? Kharoshti wasn't some tiny anomalous eastern trade script in an IVC POCKET. It was the characteristic writing system of Gandhara and the northwest, centered in precisely the region we're discussing. It was written right to left, was almost certainly derived from or strongly related to Aramaic, and was used to write Gandhari and later Sanskrit and other dialects.
Muh civilizational divide based of script difference isn't evidence for a hard political/civilizational boundary.

Yes, and Africa is a continent, like India is. Nobody said it should be unified in order to be declared a "real construct". Of course Africa is real - as a continent. You are putting words into my mouth. I am saying: to create a NATION STATE CALLED "AFRICA" then all tribes of that continent need to be demonstrably unified in a political sense, not including forced union by a third party.

Your original argument was that calling lands east of the Indus India represents a geographical misappropriation because the authentic India or Hindush belonged around the Indus.
But now you're saying India was indeed a larger continental geographical designation you merely object to a modern state adopting that geographical name then goes back and forth.
You can dislike the Republic choosing India rather than exclusively Bharat, but that's a modern naming argument not evidence that the ancient geographical concept east of the Indus was illegitimate.

 

[Master Chief]

Haha poor analogy. Those sculptures came from a particular monument in Athens belonging to a historically identifiable Greek culture. The IVC was an archaeological civilization distributed across what are now both Pakistan and India. What exactly are you demanding back? Dholavira from Gujarat? Rakhigarhi from Haryana? We'll gladly send you dirt from these sights in packets so that you can thoroughly own them

Poor analogy because you say so?

poor analogy. Those sculptures came from a particular monument in Athens belonging to a historically identifiable Greek culture. The IVC was an archaeological civilization distributed across what are now both Pakistan and India. What exactly are you demanding back? Dholavira from Gujarat? Rakhigarhi from Haryana? We'll gladly send you dirt from these sights in packets so that you can thoroughly own them.

"Poor analogy " because you say so. Re-read your own 2nd sentence.

"Those sculptures came from a particular monument in Athens belonging to a historically identifiable Greek culture."

Dancing Girl came from a particular dig site in Mohenjo Daro belonging to a historically identifiable Pakistani culture.

Even by YOUR OWN acknowledgement, the IVC in Pakistani lands is the VERY LEAST CLAIMABLE IVC territory by Pakistan.

Return it. Then there is plenty more to be discussed regarding artefact allocation and retrieval.

Thanks for proving nothing and winning an argument with yourself.

Read the trail of statements that brought you to this conclusion again. Your argument was refuted. Stick your fingers in your ears and sing to yourself all you like.

To answer your question, people with greater AASI related lower West Eurasian related ancestry. Nobody disputes that. What I dispute is your transformation of that inference into
“Therefore pre IVC Gangetics were 50–70% AASI and minimal or no Iranian related ancestry.”
Narasimhan doesn't say that.
In fact the exact paragraph you quote says that ASI formation continued after the IVC decline as indus periphery cline ancestry mixed with people of less West eurasian relatednes. The study further concludes that both ANI and ASI received very substantial Indus Periphery related ancestry at least about 70% for ANI and 55% for ASI in their modelling.
“Less West Eurasian related” is a relative description of inferred source populations. It isn't an ancient DNA report saying:
“We excavated pre 2600 BCE Gangetics and measured them at 50 -70% aasi.”
Aren't you supposed to know these things. I have some dumb-ass B.Tech and I could figure it out. You converted an inferred demographic source into sampled individuals and then assigned them percentages the paper doesn't provide.

Your first paragraph is moronic and demonstrates your inability to understand a simple genetic (and temporal) extrapolation. The author makes it clear REPEATEDLY (BTW, SHINDE ALSO AGREED WITH THIS IN THE MORE RECENT PAPER ON THE RAKHIGIRI SAMPLE - who are you to dispute?) that there is no reasonable cause to doubt that "pre IVC Gangetics were 50–70% AASI and minimal or no Iranian related ancestry".

Here, from Narasimhan:

"We can jointly model all individuals in this [Indus Periphery] cline as a mixture of two source populations: One end of the cline is consistent with being entirely AHG-related, and the other is consistent with being ~90% Iranian farmer–related and ~10% WSHG-related (Fig. 4) (13). People fitting on the Indus Periphery Cline constitute the majority of the ancestors of present-day South Asians. Through formal modeling, we demonstrate that it is this contribution of Indus Periphery Cline people to later South Asians, rather than westward gene flow bringing an ancestry unique to South Asia onto the Iranian plateau, that explains the high degree of shared ancestry between present-day South Asians and early Holocene Iranians (9, 13)."

AHG is described as a proxy for AASI groups. Fair enough, a proxy, but Narisimhan has in his own figure 5 declared his model to be based on AASI, not AHG (which is where Narasimhan himself lets the cat out the bag! I could write a whole thread on Narasimhan's hindutva slant and disingenuous writings BTW but we can save that for now! Let me continue to castigate you with the works of your own)...



Look at the lower end of the graph at annotations for AASI, ASI, IRANIAN RELATED, INDUS PERIPHERY WEST and follow the arrows and read out the percentages yourself, dil mein bayshakt parlo, if there is some shame in reading out loud.

There is also this from Narasimhan:

"The graph fits the component of South Asian ancestry with no West Eurasian relatedness (Ancestral Ancient South Asians, AASI) as an Asian lineage that split off around the time that East Asian, Andaman Islander, and Papuan ancestors separated from each other, consistent with the hypothesis that eastern and southern Asian lineages derive from an eastward spread that in a short span gave rise to lineages leading to AASI, East Asians, Andamanese hunter-gatherers, and Papuans (54) (Fig. 5).”

Annotation of the above graph:

"However, the admixture graph does highlight several key findings of the study, including the deep separation of the AASI from other Eurasian lineages".

If you're going to deny your own boy's paper, then kindly explain why your personal "extrapolations", which hitherto are NOTHING MORE THAN YOUR FANCIFUL OPINION, might be even remotely superior to those of multiple geneticists, including Narasimhan, Reich and Shinde.

Irrelevant. All non african human populations descend from migrations out of Africa. That statement doesn't tell you what percentage of the population of the pre 2600 BCE Gangetic plain was AASI related.

See above.

Your cope is really starting to show now.

I'm not claiming they were not aadi rich. I'm saying you don't possess the ancient DNA needed to state your precise percentages as observed fact.
They may indeed have been substantially or predominantly aasi related.

Lol. "May indeed" is the precise moment where you are starting to understand that the best way to cope is to acknowledge that researchers who have spent their lives on this stuff "may indeed" just know something more than you and me combined.

Again, if you have a counter claim, based EITHER on direct DNA evidence, OR on well modelled and articulated extrapolation from DNA evidence, do submit a paper to Nature (after I have proofread it of course).

Correct. And neither can you. That is exactly my objection. We don't know the Harappan language. You are the one using the unknown language as positive evidence for linguistic discontinuity.

We know ENOUGH about the Harappan language to know it is DEFINITELY NOT CONTINGUOUS with whatever the elephant riders to the east used! They're completely different.

Feel free to decipher the Indus script and prove it is somehow related to Brahmi.

Great. Exactly like I said political fragmentation does not invalidate a geographical identity. Ancient India did not need to be one sovereign state for India to function as a geographical designation. At least some positive change in this discourse.

Mate, I disagreed with you in my post that you extracted for this particular response. I pointed out to you that Europe is a continent, as India is, hence both are not regarded as sovereign states in any sense of the term. The exceptions arose in periods of history where contiguity was ENFORCED BY ARMS of an imperial power - do you need reminding again of the fact that prior to the Battle of Plassey there was nothing even remotely like a "unified Hindustani qom", nothing whatsoever! The British forced these warring tribes together and gave you your country 200 years later through their hard work, industrious toil, and Enfield rifles.

Apply basic logic here, evidence doesn't reveal what language Harappans spoke, logical conclusion is Harappan language is unknown. Not the Harappan language differed from eastern languages.
Absence of surviving inscriptions does not establish that two populations had different scripts.

See above response re: script. We don't know what the Harappan script is but we know what it jolly well is NOT!

What you call your "logical conclusion" is highly illogical.

Nobody claimed Harappa and Magadha were the same political entity.

You have been playing around with this chronological sleight of hand which I objected to before.

Well neither were Hindush and Magadha the same political entity! There was a hard border between them ffs. Language differences were but one part of that border. Sure, it may well have been peaceful and prosperous, but so are many neighbourhoods where the denizens can behave in a mature and constructive fashion.

Muh civilizational divide based of script difference isn't evidence for a hard political/civilizational boundary.

See above. Distinct scripts is part of the story.

Your original argument was that calling lands east of the Indus India represents a geographical misappropriation because the authentic India or Hindush belonged around the Indus.
But now you're saying India was indeed a larger continental geographical designation you merely object to a modern state adopting that geographical name then goes back and forth.

Both are true.

The denizens of the gangetic plains have certainly misappropriated Achaemenid Hindush/Harappa/ancient Pakistani territories by calling themselves "INDIA".

"India" existed on maps and in historical accounts as it was a geographic region as understood by those who sought to simplify their exploratory efforts, just as they did with Africa.

 

[Vikramaditya1]

Poor analogy because you say so?
"Poor analogy " because you say so. Re-read your own 2nd sentence.

"Those sculptures came from a particular monument in Athens belonging to a historically identifiable Greek culture."

Dancing Girl came from a particular dig site in Mohenjo Daro belonging to a historically identifiable Pakistani culture.

Haha "Pakistani culture" like what?
Anyway you are entitled to argue that an artefact excavated at Mohenjo-daro should today be physically held in Pakistan. That's an artefact repatriation argument and can be discussed on its own merits.
But it does not establish your much larger proposition that Pakistan is the exclusive progenitor state of the entire IVC. The Elgin analogy therefore proves much less than you want it to prove.

Even by YOUR OWN acknowledgement, the IVC in Pakistani lands is the VERY LEAST CLAIMABLE IVC territory by Pakistan.

Return it. Then there is plenty more to be discussed regarding artefact allocation and retrieval.

....“Pakistan exclusively owns the IVC legacy saar”... to that.

Read the trail of statements that brought you to this conclusion again. Your argument was refuted. Stick your fingers in your ears and sing to yourself all you like.

Your interpretation is irrelevant so is your poor comprehension.

Your first paragraph is moronic and demonstrates your inability to understand a simple genetic (and temporal) extrapolation. The author makes it clear REPEATEDLY (BTW, SHINDE ALSO AGREED WITH THIS IN THE MORE RECENT PAPER ON THE RAKHIGIRI SAMPLE - who are you to dispute?) that there is no reasonable cause to doubt that "pre IVC Gangetics were 50–70% AASI and minimal or no Iranian related ancestry".

You first claimed

"PRE-HARAPPAN GANGETICS: 50–70% AASI." as though this were an observed ancient-DNA population analogous to the Indus Periphery samples. Nope.

Narasimhan's admixture graph reconstructs an AASI-related ancestral lineage and models later populations through mixtures involving it. The graph does not magically turn that reconstructed source into a cemetery full of sequenced pre 2500 BCE Gangetic individuals.

To put it simply.

AASI related ancestry existed in South Asia before the IVC. Yes.

But you silently moved on from "We possess directly sampled pre-Mature Harappan Gangetic genomes establishing 50–70% AASI and minimal to no Iranianrelated ancestry. " (You didn't.)

To this

"Populations east southeast of the IVC were probably more AASI rich and less West Eurasian rlated than the Indus Periphery populations." Yeah very plausible, and consistent with the demographic model.

Here, from Narasimhan:

"We can jointly model all individuals in this [Indus Periphery] cline as a mixture of two source populations: One end of the cline is consistent with being entirely AHG-related, and the other is consistent with being ~90% Iranian farmer–related and ~10% WSHG-related (Fig. 4) (13). People fitting on the Indus Periphery Cline constitute the majority of the ancestors of present-day South Asians. Through formal modeling, we demonstrate that it is this contribution of Indus Periphery Cline people to later South Asians, rather than westward gene flow bringing an ancestry unique to South Asia onto the Iranian plateau, that explains the high degree of shared ancestry between present-day South Asians and early Holocene Iranians (9, 13)."

Correct. Read the wording you just quoted.
“consistent with being.”
This is an inferred endpoint of a population genetic model.
It isn't a sequenced Gangetic individual.
And AHG/AASI is being used like a deep ancestral source in the model. You cannot point at the reconstructed endpoint of an admixture graph, geographically relocate it into the pre ivc gangetic plain, assign a neat 50–70% range to the inhabitants, and then tell me you've shown their genomes.

AHG is described as a proxy for AASI groups. Fair enough, a proxy, but Narisimhan has in his own figure 5 declared his model to be based on AASI, not AHG (which is where Narasimhan himself lets the cat out the bag! I could write a whole thread on Narasimhan's hindutva slant and disingenuous writings BTW but we can save that for now! Let me continue to castigate you with the works of your own)...

View attachment 213819

I have no issue with the figures
My issue is to what you're pretending this figure is.
An admixture graph contains modelled ancestral lineages and mixture events. AASI in that graph is not a labelled archaeological skeleton from Patna, Bihar dated 2800 BCE.
ASI is itself a later admixed ancestral population, not 'the pre ivc gangetics'.
Your own Narasimhan quotation explicitly says "ASI were not fully formed at the time of the IVC." So using later ASI proportions as though they directly describe a pre ivc gangetic population is exactly the chronological issue I've been talking aboyt.

Look at the lower end of the graph at annotations for AASI, ASI, IRANIAN RELATED, INDUS PERIPHERY WEST and follow the arrows and read out the percentages yourself, dil mein bayshakt parlo, if there is some shame in reading out loud.

There is also this from Narasimhan:

"The graph fits the component of South Asian ancestry with no West Eurasian relatedness (Ancestral Ancient South Asians, AASI) as an Asian lineage that split off around the time that East Asian, Andaman Islander, and Papuan ancestors separated from each other, consistent with the hypothesis that eastern and southern Asian lineages derive from an eastward spread that in a short span gave rise to lineages leading to AASI, East Asians, Andamanese hunter-gatherers, and Papuans (54) (Fig. 5).”

Annotation of the above graph:

"However, the admixture graph does highlight several key findings of the study, including the deep separation of the AASI from other Eurasian lineages".

If you're going to deny your own boy's paper, then kindly explain why your personal "extrapolations", which hitherto are NOTHING MORE THAN YOUR FANCIFUL OPINION, might be even remotely superior to those of multiple geneticists, including Narasimhan, Reich and Shinde.



See above.

Your cope is really starting to show now.

Nobody disputes the deep separation of AASI-related ancestry. That establishes a deep population lineage.
It does not establish your civilizational frontier at the Indus. Genetic gradients and civilizational borders are not interchangeable concepts.
The same Narasimhan model, our boy indeed, you keep quoting subsequently has IVC related ancestry contributing enormously to the populations ancestral to later South Asians.
So the genetics demonstrate differentiation and later extensive admixture.
That's much more interesting than your rather weak attempt to turn one phase of that demographic history into an eternal Pakistani Gangetic wall. Which was a nice try.

Lol. "May indeed" is the precise moment where you are starting to understand that the best way to cope is to acknowledge that researchers who have spent their lives on this stuff "may indeed" just know something more than you and me combined.

Again, if you have a counter claim, based EITHER on direct DNA evidence, OR on well modelled and articulated extrapolation from DNA evidence, do submit a paper to Nature (after I have proofread it of course).

I don't need a counterclaim. That's another burden of proof inversion.

You asserted a numerical population
50–70% AASI pre-IVC Gangetics.
I'm asking how you obtained that number. You went but saar Narasimhan saar, DNA saar, he's your boy saaar.
My answer can perfectly legitimately be the available model makes an AASI rich eastern population plausible, but we lack sufficient directly sampled pre-IVC Gangetic genomes to assign that population your precise observed percentages. That's not a competing genetic model rather distinguishing inference from measurement.

We know ENOUGH about the Harappan language to know it is DEFINITELY NOT CONTINGUOUS with whatever the elephant riders to the east used! They're completely different.

Sooo stoopid. No, we absolutely do not.
This is now simply assertion.
What language did the Harappans speak?
Proto dravidian?
Para munda?
An extinct language family?
Several languages?
Something Indo-Aryan-related?
You don't know. Nobody knows

Feel free to decipher the Indus script and prove it is somehow related to Brahmi.

I don't need the Indus script to descend from Brahmi to demonstrate linguistic relationship. Scripts and languages are not the same thing.
Closely related languages can be written in entirely different scripts.
Say languages like Gandhari northwestern middle Indo Aryan is written in Kharosthi while eastern middle Indo Aryan written in Brahmi.
And conversely unrelated language can be written in similar script. Say Indonesian and English both written in Latin.

Mate, I disagreed with you in my post that you extracted for this particular response. I pointed out to you that Europe is a continent, as India is,

India isn't a continent by any stretch. But I guess you finally figured out
India can function as a geographical term independently of political unity.

hence both are not regarded as sovereign states in any sense of the term. The exceptions arose in periods of history where contiguity was ENFORCED BY ARMS of an imperial power - do you need reminding again of the fact that prior to the Battle of Plassey there was nothing even remotely like a "unified Hindustani qom", nothing whatsoever! The British forced these warring tribes together and gave you your country 200 years later through their hard work, industrious toil, and Enfield rifles.

None of this matters. A geographical identity does not require uninterrupted political sovereignty. Europe remains Europe whether it contains thirty kingdoms, one empire or sixty republics.
Likewise the existence of multiple polities in India does not erase the geographical category.

See above response re: script. We don't know what the Harappan script is but we know what it jolly well is NOT!

Great.
Tell me what language it is not.
Not what graphic signs look different.
Not what later script is visually unrelated.
What language can you exclude, and on what linguistic evidence?
Because an undeciphered sign system cannot normally tell you “Definitely unrelated to language X” unless you've first established enough phonetic or linguistic information to perform the comparison.
You have on more than one occasion transformed
“Indus script doesn't resemble later Brahmi” into “therefore the underlying languages were unrelated.” re read what I said about scripts and languages.

What you call your "logical conclusion" is highly illogical.



Well neither were Hindush and Magadha the same political entity! There was a hard border between them ffs. Language differences were but one part of that border. Sure, it may well have been peaceful and prosperous, but so are many neighbourhoods where the denizens can behave in a mature and constructive fashion.

Nobody disputes that Achaemenid Hindush and Magadha were separate political entities.
Persia and Egypt were separate political entities at various periods.
Athens and Sparta were separate political entities.
Florence and Venice were separate political entities.
France and Germany are separate political entities today.
Political borders don't automatically create separate civilizations. Your original proposition was much stronger than "Magadha wasn't governed by the satrap of Hindush.”
No shit.

See above. Distinct scripts is part of the story.

Chronology committed suicide after reading that. The Mature Harappan signs largely disappears around the second millennium BCE. Then there was no surviving scripts until those rocky ones thousand years later. Remember the quantum jumps you took from 2500 BCE to 500 BCE?
The point is if you want to use script geography as evidence, establish concurrent writing traditions first.

Both are true.

The denizens of the gangetic plains have certainly misappropriated Achaemenid Hindush/Harappa/ancient Pakistani territories by calling themselves "INDIA".

Aand like that “India” became a larger geographical term used for a region extending beyond Achaemenid Hindush and it is not a historical demonstration that the expanded geographical usage was erroneous.

"India" existed on maps and in historical accounts as it was a geographic region as understood by those who sought to simplify their exploratory efforts, just as they did with Africa.

Then stop asking me to produce a permanently unified precolonial Indian nation state as the condition for the term's historical legitimacy.

 

[Master Chief]

You first claimed

"PRE-HARAPPAN GANGETICS: 50–70% AASI." as though this were an observed ancient-DNA population analogous to the Indus Periphery samples. Nope.

Narasimhan's admixture graph reconstructs an AASI-related ancestral lineage and models later populations through mixtures involving it. The graph does not magically turn that reconstructed source into a cemetery full of sequenced pre 2500 BCE Gangetic individuals.

To put it simply.

AASI related ancestry existed in South Asia before the IVC. Yes.

But you silently moved on from "We possess directly sampled pre-Mature Harappan Gangetic genomes establishing 50–70% AASI and minimal to no Iranianrelated ancestry. " (You didn't.)

To this

"Populations east southeast of the IVC were probably more AASI rich and less West Eurasian rlated than the Indus Periphery populations." Yeah very plausible, and consistent with the demographic model.

Here is what I said that got your knickers in a twist, understandably:

PRE-HARAPPAN MATURE PHASE GANGETICS:
-- AASI: 50-70%. IRANIAN RELATED: MINIMAL TO NO INITIAL PRESENCE.

This is not factually incorrect, nor is it an incorrect interpretation of Narasimhan's work. You cannot seem to tolerate the result, hence have created a straw man argument that somehow "no direct genomic sampling saar! therefore your theory is invalid".

Pure and utterly baloney.

Before the Harappan civilisation, there is no reasonable cause to doubt that gangetics were composed of these proportions genomic influence. It is perfectly valid on the basis of the models I have described and quoted directly from Narasimhan. Your obfuscation and desire to disprove this is baffling, as it is well established, with or without an actual carcass from which to withdraw samples.

As I stated, if you wish to dispute this, present evidence, EITHER AS A RELIABLE MODEL OR FROM DIRECT DNA EVIDENCE. The claim has been made, with evidence. Don't counter it with obfuscation and feels, but bring evidence.

AASI ancestry is ubiquitous as it is a foundational layer in modern Indian genomes, northern or southern.

At this point, it is abundantly clear you don't really now what it is you're arguing about!

Correct. Read the wording you just quoted.
“consistent with being.”
This is an inferred endpoint of a population genetic model.
It isn't a sequenced Gangetic individual.
And AHG/AASI is being used like a deep ancestral source in the model. You cannot point at the reconstructed endpoint of an admixture graph, geographically relocate it into the pre ivc gangetic plain, assign a neat 50–70% range to the inhabitants, and then tell me you've shown their genomes.

More trash and strawmanning.

You have claimed that my "inference" is false.

Why is it false?

You will need to refute Narasimhan, Reich, and Shinde if you feel the model they all agree with is "false inference".

Again, bring forth your model or direct DNA evidence that states otherwise.

I have no issue with the figures
My issue is to what you're pretending this figure is.
An admixture graph contains modelled ancestral lineages and mixture events. AASI in that graph is not a labelled archaeological skeleton from Patna, Bihar dated 2800 BCE.
ASI is itself a later admixed ancestral population, not 'the pre ivc gangetics'.
Your own Narasimhan quotation explicitly says "ASI were not fully formed at the time of the IVC." So using later ASI proportions as though they directly describe a pre ivc gangetic population is exactly the chronological issue I've been talking aboyt.

Yes, read it again. ASI fully formed after the eastward and southward spread of the IVC Periphery cline. I'm not using ASI to infer the PRE-IVC gangetic population. I'm using AASI to describe it, exactly as per the findings of Narasimhan's model.

Honestly, you can keep arguing that "AASI is not directly sampled saar! so I don't accept extrapolations by experts saar!" But then what is your alternative theory regarding the genetic composition of pre-IVC mature phase gangetics?

I don't need a counterclaim. That's another burden of proof inversion.

You asserted a numerical population
50–70% AASI pre-IVC Gangetics.
I'm asking how you obtained that number. You went but saar Narasimhan saar, DNA saar, he's your boy saaar.
My answer can perfectly legitimately be the available model makes an AASI rich eastern population plausible, but we lack sufficient directly sampled pre-IVC Gangetic genomes to assign that population your precise observed percentages. That's not a competing genetic model rather distinguishing inference from measurement.

I "asserted" information from Narasimhan's model. If you dispute my assertion, you dispute that model.

It is entirely your prerogative to dispute that model but then you need to convince me that you have a different model, or direct data, that "asserts" otherwise.

As it stands, I have no reason to deny AASI being AT LEAST 50-70% contributory to the pre-IVC mature phase gangetic genome. It is likely MORE, because significant admixture with Iranian DNA had not occurred by then (of course some minor Iranian contribution was already in the region prior to the IVC becoming established, so it would not surprise me if some small amount was present, which is factored into Narasimhan's work)!! You know all this already though, surely!?

Nobody disputes the deep separation of AASI-related ancestry. That establishes a deep population lineage.
It does not establish your civilizational frontier at the Indus. Genetic gradients and civilizational borders are not interchangeable concepts.
The same Narasimhan model, our boy indeed, you keep quoting subsequently has IVC related ancestry contributing enormously to the populations ancestral to later South Asians.
So the genetics demonstrate differentiation and later extensive admixture.
That's much more interesting than your rather weak attempt to turn one phase of that demographic history into an eternal Pakistani Gangetic wall. Which was a nice try.

Ahaaa here we go! Bikram bhai is getting it now! Hallelujah.

Yes! Elephant riders to the east were originally VERY DISTINCT GENETICALLY FROM city builders of IVC. Admixture certainly occurred AFTER THE FALL OF THE IVC (and the arrival of your 3rd group of fathers from Ukraine, which we will save for another day!).

That's a hard border mate.

The Nehruvian regime cannot claim what lies west of that border in civilisational terms. That empire collapsed and was overrun, its genome then transferring east and south. You can claim a degree of genetic lineage of course, certain Indian groups much moreso than others, but you can't claim the empire, just as you can't wake up and claim Ethiopia because of ancestral African DNA.

Sooo stoopid. No, we absolutely do not.
This is now simply assertion.
What language did the Harappans speak?
Proto dravidian?
Para munda?
An extinct language family?
Several languages?
Something Indo-Aryan-related?
You don't know. Nobody knows

We know what Harappans definitely DIDN'T write with - Brahmi. So no linguistic connection is demonstrable.

I don't need the Indus script to descend from Brahmi to demonstrate linguistic relationship. Scripts and languages are not the same thing.
Closely related languages can be written in entirely different scripts.
Say languages like Gandhari northwestern middle Indo Aryan is written in Kharosthi while eastern middle Indo Aryan written in Brahmi.
And conversely unrelated language can be written in similar script. Say Indonesian and English both written in Latin.

Got it. So, no linguistic connection, either on the basis of script or spoken language, is demonstrable. I'm fine with that. I think I always was.

Great.
Tell me what language it is not.
Not what graphic signs look different.
Not what later script is visually unrelated.
What language can you exclude, and on what linguistic evidence?
Because an undeciphered sign system cannot normally tell you “Definitely unrelated to language X” unless you've first established enough phonetic or linguistic information to perform the comparison.
You have on more than one occasion transformed
“Indus script doesn't resemble later Brahmi” into “therefore the underlying languages were unrelated.” re read what I said about scripts and languages.

OK buddy. You're still claiming a connection over unproven linguistic linkage, whether spoken or written. Can brahmi writing gangetics also claim association with ANY undeciphered script anywhere in the world, purely because "it might have possibly conceivably sounded the same same saar even though written form looks different! One never knows!"?? Please claim South America because Olmec script is undeciphered and COULD THEORETICALLY SOUND LIKE a Bollywood lyrics sheet when finally deciphered. FFS you moron!

Nobody disputes that Achaemenid Hindush and Magadha were separate political entities.

Good. It's a start.

The point is if you want to use script geography as evidence, establish concurrent writing traditions first.

Did Achaemenids bring Brahmi to you?

If they did, I'm just dying to know. I'm no linguist. But if you want to now claim the concurrent language of Hindush, please do so, with evidence. Can we then acknowledge a new set of linguistic fathers for Gangetics in addition to the Aryans who brought Indo-European languages to this region? Where is your whole argument even going?

Then stop asking me to produce a permanently unified precolonial Indian nation state as the condition for the term's historical legitimacy.

Nope. I won't stop. India is a continent label, a geographical expression only applied for simplicity (just like Africa was), when interpreted in any form beyond its original meaning in specific context to the lands of the Indus Valley.

This is necessary because the modern Secular Republic of India erroneously claims ALL privileges associated with the former interpretation of "India" on the basis of dream sequences in religious texts. The demonstrable reality (cultural, genetic, linguistic) supports the latter (see paragraph above) meaning of "India", that it is a precisely geolocated unique cultural and political entity centred around the Indus Valley, DISTINCT FROM whatever lay to the east.