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

[Vikramaditya1]

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

Not letting you wiggle your way out of blunders. Call it whatever you want. "Not factually incorrect"

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!

View attachment 213914



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.

View attachment 213914



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.

You keep saying I am “denying Narasimhan.” I am not. I am distinguishing what Narasimhan actually models from the extra geographic and numerical certainty you have attached to it.
Narasimhan says the pre-2000 BCE Indus Periphery Cline can be modeled between two endpoints one entirely AHG related, and another about 90% Iranian farmer related plus 10% WSHG related. He then says ASI later formed when Indus Periphery related populations mixed with South Asians having higher proportions of AASI related ancestry.
Fine.
Where, specifically, does Narasimhan state,
“Pre-Mature Harappan gangetic populations were 50–70% AASI and had minimal or no Iranian-related ancestry”?
That exact population, geography and percentage are yours, not his.
You can infer that populations farther east were probably more AASI rich. I have already said that is plausible. But you have gone further and converted a reconstructed ancestral component plus later eastern populations into a numerical census of pre IVC gangetics.
Those are not the same thing.
Your figure does not contain a sequenced “pre IVC gangetic” population. AASI is a statistically reconstructed ancestral lineage. The paper explicitly describes the graph as fitting an AASI component with no West-Eurasian-relatedness and uses later groups such as Juang and Palliyar to constrain the model.
So I am not saying:
“AASI rich eastern populations are false.”
I am saying:
“Your exact 50–70% pre IVC gangetic figure is an extrapolation, not a directly reported result of Narasimhan.”
If you disagree, quote the sentence where Narasimhan assigns that range to pre-Mature Harappan gangetics.

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 an alternative point estimate.
“Insufficient evidence to assign your exact numerical range” is a perfectly valid conclusion. What is this "You guessed 60% so I must guess 35% or concede 60%."?
The evidence supports an AASI rich eastern source population and later mixture with Indus periphery related ancestry. It does not require me to pretend we know its exact pre 2600 BCE gangetic composition to within twenty percentage points.
Also notice something else in Narasimhan that works against your “hard border”. The paper says the Indus Periphery Cline itself varied enormously, from individuals approaching an AHG related endpoint to others overwhelmingly Iranian related. It describes this as a genetic cline. A cline is almost the opposite of the neat binary picture you're trying to construct.

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!?

"PRE-HARAPPAN GANGETICS: AASI 50–70%.” to
“I have no reason to deny at least 50–70%.” sure buddy... I didn't notice the switch up. If I say I have no reason to deny X doesn't mean it's evidence for X.

If the claim is specifically ≥50%, show where the model constrains the unsampled pre-IVC gangetic population to ≥50%.
Or simply there is not enough samples for gangetic population. We can only estimate based on models. And like I have said before there is much less DNA evidence from this part of the world, much less than even Neanderthals. Precise pre-IVC Gangetic percentages are not directly established.

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.

Even granting substantial ancestry differences, you've made another unsupported jump. Genetic differentiation to hard civilizational border.

Narasimhan describes ancestry gradients, migration and admixture, not an ethnographic customs post at the Indus.

And the actual Rakhigarhi study makes this particularly awkward. Shinde et al. describe the IVC itself as a cosmopolitan civilization with multiple cultural groups, and the Rakhigarhi genome falls on the same IVC cline as the Indus-periphery individuals. They explicitly argue that this ancestry profile extended to North India.

So your supposedly distinct “Indus city builder” genetic horizon is outside Pakistan. No wonder you thoroughly objected to seperating IVC sites in the other thread but now batting for this imaginary civilizational divide. It's cute.

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!).

Some major eastward/southeastward admixture associated with formation of ASI certainly intensified after IVC decline. Narasimhan says exactly that.
But don't rewrite that into “There was no earlier gene flow or admixture across the supposed boundary.”
In fact, Narasimhan estimates that mixture generating the Indus Periphery Cline itself occurred by roughly 5400–3700 BCE, long before the Mature IVC.
And the authors explicitly discuss two possibilities for the Iranian related ancestry deep local hunter gatherer structure or movement connected with the spread of agriculture into Indian subcontinent. Then again gradients and long term movement but not a sealed biological wall.

That's a hard border mate.

It isn't hard border mate. A genetic gradient does not become a hard border mate, merely because populations at different points have different mean ancestry proportions mate. If that standard were applied consistently, huge parts of Eurasia would fragment into dozens of separate civilizations every few hundred kilometres mate.
To establish a hard border you would need something like a sharp, persistent discontinuity coinciding geographically with your proposed frontier, maintained across time and corroborated by archaeology, language, exchange patterns and settlement history.
Narasimhan does not demonstrate that mate. He demonstrates population structure and subsequent mixture.

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.

Even if your genetic border existed this conclusion still wouldn't make sense.
Civilizational inheritance is not allocated by admixture percentages.
So what modern Greeks would have to surrender parts of classical Greek history if their present genomic composition differs from Mycenians, modern Egyptians would lose Pharaoic Egypt after later admixture and Iraqis could claim only whatever ancient mesopotamian ancestry proportion a qpAdm model happened to assign them. Archaeological heritage isn't DNA paternity test.

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.

You need to work on your analogy. India's relationship to the IVC is not based merely on sharing distant ancestry with it. Major IVC settlements are physically located inside modern India. There are more sites being excavated, we are conducting DNA studies while some are busy defacing statues.

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

Still haven't figured out script doesn't mean language have you?

Acknowledgments for the careful change in word play "demonstrable".

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.



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!

I am not claiming Harappan was Magadhi. I am saying you cannot use an unknown Harappan language as positive evidence that it was unrelated to eastern languages. You're fighting and winning arguments against yourself "like a moron". Seriously the level of cognitive skills displayed is outrageous. "Undeciphered means the relationship is presently undetermined.” The fact that you cannot prove linguistic continuity does not prove discontinuity.

Did Achaemenids bring Brahmi to you?

Probably not, and I haven't argued that they did did I? But I can't say NO as a matter of fact. Have you seen Brahmi being written? Kinda looks like some semitic script like written Gandharan.
That does not establish Harappan linguistic continuity.
It does demonstrate why different scripts are inadequate evidence for unrelated languages or separate civilizations.

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?

Against muh civilizational divide argument. Figured that out yet?

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.

You are free to make it. But stop presenting it as though Achaemenid administrative geography proves it. Achaemenid Hindush being Indus centred does not prevent the derivative Greek and later geographical term India from expanding semantically.

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.

“India is a continent label saar a geographical expression… saar” to "India is a precisely geolocated saar unique cultural and political entity centred around the Indus saaar" in two para. Which is it?
Your entire argument depends upon freezing the semantic range of the word at the Achaemenid stage at the same time you say that later authors used “India” geographically for a much larger region. Why thank you for proving my point again.

As I said before you are free to disagree against consensus regarding the nomenclature. Make it official and speak up at the UN, "we are not Pakistan we are real India" make a formal objection against India using India to identify itself, UN is dark these days let there be some comedic relief.

 

[Master Chief]

You keep saying I am “denying Narasimhan.” I am not. I am distinguishing what Narasimhan actually models from the extra geographic and numerical certainty you have attached to it.
Narasimhan says the pre-2000 BCE Indus Periphery Cline can be modeled between two endpoints one entirely AHG related, and another about 90% Iranian farmer related plus 10% WSHG related. He then says ASI later formed when Indus Periphery related populations mixed with South Asians having higher proportions of AASI related ancestry.
Fine.
Where, specifically, does Narasimhan state,
“Pre-Mature Harappan gangetic populations were 50–70% AASI and had minimal or no Iranian-related ancestry”?
That exact population, geography and percentage are yours, not his.
You can infer that populations farther east were probably more AASI rich. I have already said that is plausible. But you have gone further and converted a reconstructed ancestral component plus later eastern populations into a numerical census of pre IVC gangetics.
Those are not the same thing.
Your figure does not contain a sequenced “pre IVC gangetic” population. AASI is a statistically reconstructed ancestral lineage. The paper explicitly describes the graph as fitting an AASI component with no West-Eurasian-relatedness and uses later groups such as Juang and Palliyar to constrain the model.
So I am not saying:
“AASI rich eastern populations are false.”
I am saying:
“Your exact 50–70% pre IVC gangetic figure is an extrapolation, not a directly reported result of Narasimhan.”
If you disagree, quote the sentence where Narasimhan assigns that range to pre-Mature Harappan gangetics.

Not letting you wiggle your way out of blunders. Call it whatever you want. "Not factually incorrect"

You're thick as a peg if you can't read the chart I whacked in front of you.

Read the annotations.



All from this single model:

1. AASI contributes 70% of ASI over the period 5000-3000 years ago, as per Narasimhan (not my graph).

2. South Asians gave direct rise to AASI (WITHOUT ANY INVOLVEMENT OF IRANIANS OR STEPPELANDERS) at the start of that period (I.e. 5000 years ago). Any mixture of AASI with Iranians or Steppelanders MUST HAVE OCCURRED AFTER. keep following the arrows. All as per Narasimhan (not my graph).

NARASIMHAN SAYS, regarding the Indus Periphery Cline:

"We can jointly model all individuals in this 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))."

Again: "ONE END OF THE CLINE IS CONSISTENT WITH BEING ENTIRELY AHG (AASI) RELATED"

THE LOCATION OF THE CLINE IN QUESTION??



Have a look yourself. I am happy to talk you through it step by step since you clearly can't be bothered reading the paper yourself.

WHICH "END" OF "THE CLINE" DO YOU THINK IS "ENTIRELY AHG RELATED", AS PER NARASIMHAN. Look at the dates given, 5000-1500 BCE. IVC existed 3000-1500 BCE approx. The eastern "end of the cline" ( I.e. Ganga-land) must have been the "entirely AHG related" end. Therefore, Narasimhan is telling us very precisely that gangetic realms WERE AHG dominant, OVERWHELMINGLY SO (50-70% is being way too generous if you study the two figures I have put in front of you), before the mature Harappan era.

EVERYTHING I HAVE SAID IS DERIVED DIRECTLY FROM NARASIMHAN'S WORK. YOU SIMPLY ARE INCAPABLE OF INTERPRETING IT. Not my problem.

Yes, there is a gradient, which is the nature of a cline, of course (why you feel the need to repeat this is beyond me). That hardly needs saying, does it? But one end of it is "entirely AHG related" - Narasimhan's words, not mine!

"PRE-HARAPPAN GANGETICS: AASI 50–70%.” to
“I have no reason to deny at least 50–70%.” sure buddy... I didn't notice the switch up. If I say I have no reason to deny X doesn't mean it's evidence for X.

If the claim is specifically ≥50%, show where the model constrains the unsampled pre-IVC gangetic population to ≥50%.
Or simply there is not enough samples for gangetic population. We can only estimate based on models. And like I hav

"PRE-HARAPPAN GANGETICS: AASI 50–70%.” to
“I have no reason to deny at least 50–70%.” sure buddy... I didn't notice the switch up. If I say I have no reason to deny X doesn't mean it's evidence for X.

If the claim is specifically ≥50%, show where the model constrains the unsampled pre-IVC gangetic population to ≥50%.
Or simply there is not enough samples for gangetic population. We can only estimate based on models. And like I have said before there is much less DNA evidence from this part of the world, much less than even Neanderthals. Precise pre-IVC Gangetic percentages are not directly established.

If you see a "switch up" there, that's your problem. I'll say what i said before once again, "pre-harappan Gangetics were 50-70% AASI", (if not substantially MORE). Yes, and also: " I have no reason to deny at least 50-70% of the pre-harappan Gangetic genome was AASI". Both statements are completely true and supportive of one another, without material contradiction. I can't help your basic illiteracy problem. These FACTS are all taken from the writing and charts/figures of Narasimhan et al (2019). The evidence is all there.

Of course it is clear to me why you are so transfixed and this bizarre protest against the nature of the pre-harappan gangetic genome. The longer you can keep me discussing this, the longer we can avoid the juicy bits about your Iranian and Ukrainian parentage. Fine, no problem. Whatever helps you sleep buddy.

One last time, altogether now: "one end of the cline is consistent with being entirely AHG-related".

And the actual Rakhigarhi study makes this particularly awkward. Shinde et al. describe the IVC itself as a cosmopolitan civilization with multiple cultural groups, and the Rakhigarhi genome falls on the same IVC cline as the Indus-periphery individuals. They explicitly argue that this ancestry profile extended to North India.

Who has denied that "north india" after the mature Harappan era (I.e. when we know Harappans started spreading eastward and accelerating admixture with gangetics) would have a significant Harappan contribution? Who has ever denied that? You are obfuscating away from discussing the reality of PRE-IVC mature phase baseline gangetic genomes. No problem buddy. I get why you need to do this .

Some major eastward/southeastward admixture associated with formation of ASI certainly intensified after IVC decline. Narasimhan says exactly that.
But don't rewrite that into “There was no earlier gene flow or admixture across the supposed boundary.”
In fact, Narasimhan estimates that mixture generating the Indus Periphery Cline itself occurred by roughly 5400–3700 BCE, long before the Mature IVC.
And the authors explicitly discuss two possibilities for the Iranian related ancestry deep local hunter gatherer structure or movement connected with the spread of agriculture into Indian subcontinent. Then again gradients and long term movement but not a sealed biological wall.

So you don't want me to interrupt your cope session? Sorry I will keep doing that. Look at the cope in your FIRST SENTENCE. "SOME MAJOR"

A bit contradictory there don't you think?

"Some major"??

It was only "MAJOR". Don't dampen Narasimhan's works to satisfy your narrative. The major impact of Iranians on the formation of ASI populations occurred after the mature Harappan phase. We already know there was MINIMAL Iranian content in gangetic lands BEFORE then, but it was only minimal. The MAJOR contribution arose after the mature Harappan phase (not "some" major ).

You really are in major civilisational denial, aren't you? In de-Nile about de-Indus.

It isn't hard border mate. A genetic gradient does not become a hard border mate, merely because populations at different points have different mean ancestry proportions mate. If that standard were applied consistently, huge parts of Eurasia would fragment into dozens of separate civilizations every few hundred kilometres mate.
To establish a hard border you would need something like a sharp, persistent discontinuity coinciding geographically with your proposed frontier, maintained across time and corroborated by archaeology, language, exchange patterns and settlement history.
Narasimhan does not demonstrate that mate. He demonstrates population structure and subsequent mixture.

Guess what?? There are genetic gradients overlying hard borders ALL OVER THE EFFING WORLD! It is the norm, not the exception.

I have said the corollary of ALL features contribute to a hard border. Moreover, the corollary of ALL features support true naming of Pakistan as the successor state of the Indus and simultaneous abrogation of "India" as the successor state of the Indus.

You need to work on your analogy. India's relationship to the IVC is not based merely on sharing distant ancestry with it. Major IVC settlements are physically located inside modern India. There are more sites being excavated, we are conducting DNA studies while some are busy defacing statues.

You do you. We stayed civilisationally closer to the IVC than your chop suey of a nation could ever be. You've worked yourself into a position where Mizorams, Tibeto-Burmans, and God knows what scheduled tribals or whatever it is you take pride in as faux "diversity saar!" are all now somehow rightful owners of the IVC's legacy. Eff off. Your nation's founders chose to turn a continent into a nation state (or rather, beg the British to do so for you ), and therefore, a "modded continent" full of diversity you shall remain.

Yes, you have some connection to it, certainly by way of major and minor settlements. Nobody disputes that. Romanians have some Roman heritage on their lands also. Does that mean Romanians can "claim" to be the predominant inheritor of Roman civilisation?

Still haven't figured out script doesn't mean language have you?

Acknowledgments for the careful change in word play "demonstrable".

Offended by big words like "demonstrable" now?

If something isn't demonstrable then you cannot tell me it's true! All very simple. Scientific method. Deal with it.

I am not claiming Harappan was Magadhi. I am saying you cannot use an unknown Harappan language as positive evidence that it was unrelated to eastern languages.

Good you acknowledge their distinction.

You brought up some novel cope about spoken languages as opposed to written script, so don't back away now. You cannot just imagine a link between an undeciphered language you don't know the sound of and a language with deciphered script that you do know the sound of. If that is possible, you can go ahead and claim Olmec is "related" too. What gibberish you speak yourself, never mind the ancients.

The fact that you cannot prove linguistic continuity does not prove discontinuity.

Erm. It does prove discontinuity UNTIL YOU PROVE OTHERWISE. Go ahead. Prove linguistic continuity.

Probably not, and I haven't argued that they did did I? But I can't say NO as a matter of fact. Have you seen Brahmi being written? Kinda looks like some semitic script like written Gandharan.
That does not establish Harappan linguistic continuity.
It does demonstrate why different scripts are inadequate evidence for unrelated languages or separate civilizations.

More importantly and even moreso, difference between scripts is inadequate evidence or justification for combining of two civilisations.

Achaemenid Hindush being Indus centred does not prevent the derivative Greek and later geographical term India from expanding semantically.

But they did regard themselves to be in control of the WHOLE of Hindush didn't they? Nowhere is there a claim made by the Achaemenids that "parts of our "Hindush" are unconquered to the east".

“India is a continent label saar a geographical expression… saar” to "India is a precisely geolocated saar unique cultural and political entity centred around the Indus saaar" in two para. Which is it?
Your entire argument depends upon freezing the semantic range of the word at the Achaemenid stage at the same time you say that later authors used “India” geographically for a much larger region. Why thank you for proving my point again.

As I said before you are free to disagree against consensus regarding the nomenclature. Make it official and speak up at the UN, "we are not Pakistan we are real India" make a formal objection against India using India to identify itself, UN is dark these days let there be some comedic relief.

I explained why the geographical expression is incorrectly deployed by you as a political entity and why the true geolocated cultural precursor is what Pakistan is the rightful descendant of.

We don't need to cry to the UN. We have what is rightfully ours (notwithstanding looted artefacts but in the fullness of time we will get those too). Who will you cry to when we deny you a visa to come and look at your fatherland, well, one of many fatherlands?