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?

 

[Vikramaditya1]

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

Read the annotations.

View attachment 213952

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))."

You interpretation is not facts. It's your cognitive issues dressed up as facts.

Take this stupidity for example you wrote “South Asians gave direct rise to AASI at the start of that period, i.e. 5000 years ago.” No. Aasi did not originate 5000 years ago.

Narasimhan says AASI as a deeply diverged ancestral lineage, splitting around the same broad deep time radiation that produced lineages ancestral to East Asians, Andamanese and Papuans. And you think(iNtErPreT) that was in 3000 BCE. Talks about my capabilities at interpreting his works and writes shit like this as your "interpretation".

Just read it again. I repeat I'm just a dumb-ass B.Tech guy I quit biology in 12th grade, I never claim to be Biology wizard. Yet I can simply read and understand what's being written in the links you provided.

Here is something you missed right under that map which says "The ovals and admixture events are positioned according to guesses about their relative dates to help in visualization, although the dates are in no way meant to be exact." What is your interpretation now?

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

THE LOCATION OF THE CLINE IN QUESTION??

View attachment 213960

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.

You've mistaken a genetic endpoint for a geographical endpoint.

Narasimhan says “one end of the cline is consistent with being entirely AHG related” Correct.
Now show me where Narasimhan says “that end is the gangetic plain.”
The figure is not a map with Sindh at one end and Bengal at the other. It is a plot of genetic affinity. The “ends” are ancestry space endpoints.

And Narasimhan tells us exactly where the pre 2000 BCE Indus Periphery Cline in that analysis comes from 'outlier individuals from two sites in cultural contact with the IVC.'

Those sites are Gonur and Shahr e Shoktha. Not Varanasi, not Patna not the gangetic plain.

So this sentence of yours
“The eastern end of the cline ( ganga land) must have been the entirely AHG related end.” is not Narasimhan.

The words “must have been” are doing all the work.
You have taken an inferred ancestry endpoint and assigned it a geographical location for which Narasimhan had no ancient individuals.
There is another problem with your “70%” reading.
Narasimhan's textual reconstruction of ASI says 'minimum around 55% Indus Periphery Cline ancestry, with the remainder modeled as ancestry from an AHG related population when Indus Periphery West is used as the representative source. That's why your link says "The ASI formed after 2000 BCE as a mixture of a point along this cline with South Asians with higher proportions of AASI-related ancestry." Notice the language carefully
“South Asians with higher proportions of aasi related ancestry.” not pre Harappan gangetics sequenced at 50–70% AASI.
In fact Narasimhan explicitly says, "While we do not have ancient DNA data from either of the two statistically reconstructed source populations for the Modern Indian Cline, the ASI or the ANI, in what follows we co-analyze our ancient DNA data in conjunction with modern data to characterize the exact ancestry of the ASI, and to provide constraints on the ANI."
So even the ASI itself is statistically reconstructed here. And the deeper AASI source is reconstructed as well. Yet somehow you've managed to turn that into a directly localized population in “ganga land” with a precise pre IVC percentage.

Rakhigarhi actually gives us a beautiful reality check. Unlike your hypothetical gangetic endpoint, Rakhigarhi is an actual Mature Harappan individual from the eastern geographical extreme of the IVC.
Shinde explicitly say that I6113 lies on the IVC Cline and is toward its more Iranian related end.
Their approximate model gives the individual around 73 +/- 6% Iranian related ancestry under the AHG proxy model.
So here's the amusing result.
You looked at the ancestry space “AHG end” of the figure and decided
“That must geographically be the east, i.e. ganga-land.”
But when we actually sequence an IVC individual from the eastern geographical side in, Rakhigarhi, she is strongly Iranian related. That alone should tell you why you cannot turn the horizontal direction of a genetic cline into longitude.

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!

But then you say “One end of the cline is entirely AHG-related!” Yes.
And I will happily repeat it with you
ONE END OF THE GENETIC CLINE IS MODELED AS ENTIRELY AHG-RELATED.
Now add the sentence you keep infiltrating it with.
“AND NARASIMHAN IDENTIFIES THIS END AS THE PRE-IVC GANGETIC POPULATION.”
Citation please. Because that's the part I am calling out. Not the first sentence.
The second one, and this matters because your entire “hard biological border saaar” now rests upon it.

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.

Narasimhan does not directly state “Pre-Harappan Gangetics were 50–70% AASI.” What Narasimhan models is an AASI related ancestral source, an Indus Periphery Cline, and later populations formed by mixture between IVC-related ancestry and populations with higher AASI-related ancestry.
Your precise claim "pre-Harappan + Gangetic + 50–70%" is your geographical and quantitative extrapolation from that model.
And your latest interpretation makes it clear you have no idea, you are reading the AHG related end of a genetic cline as the geographical eastern end of South Asia. Where does Narasimhan identify that ancestry space endpoint as “ganga land” Quote it.
Because “one end of the cline” does not mean “the eastern end of the map.”

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.

Cute, but irrelevant.
Ancient ancestry components are not “parentage” in the civilizational sense you keep trying to sneak in.
If having ancestry ultimately derived from migrating populations makes those populations one's “fathers,” then practically every modern population on Earth has dozens of historical “fatherlands.” Population genetics describes admixture. It does not allocate ownership of civilizations according to genomic percentages.

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

One end of the GENETIC CLlNE.
Now quote the next sentence where Narasimhan says:
“This end corresponds geographically to the pre harappan gangetic plain.”

Let's go.... I'll wait.

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 .

Then we agree on that much.
But it creates a problem for your later language about a permanently distinct eastern civilization.
Narasimhans model has Indus Periphery related ancestry becoming one of the major ancestral sources of later South Asians, including populations ancestral to both ANI and ASI.
So your own preferred model describes extensive demographic integration across precisely the region you keep portraying as two neatly bounded biological civilizations.
That doesn't mean “they were always identical.” It means the model doesn't give you your permanent hard 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"??

Oh you found a "major" issue here, congratulations. Yes, substantial IVC-related ancestry moved eastward/southeastward and contributed importantly to later ASI formation after the Mature Harappan period. I have never disputed that.
What I dispute is your separate claim that we therefore know the pre Harappan gangetic baseline to your specific 50–70% figure. One proposition doesn't automatically establish the other.

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 ).

How do we know the amount in pre-Harappan Gangetic lands? Not “what would you infer?” Not “what would make demographic sense?” What ancient gangetic population is carrying your “minimal” estimate?
The paper supports populations with higher aasi related and lower west eurasian related ancestry contributing to later mixtures. That is not identical to directly constraining the whole pre Harappan Gangetic plain to “minimal Iranian ancestry.” Stop calling it an observed baseline.

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







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

Which means a genetic gradient by itself does not prove or disprove a hard political or cultural border.
So now you need independent evidence for your hard border.
You keep saying “all features” establish it, but the individual components you've offered do not do what you claim.

Genetics: gradients and admixture.

Language: Harappan language unknown.

Writing: different scripts at different chronological horizons.

Politics: different states, which nobody disputed.

Archaeology: IVC sites extend into modern India.

You don't get a “hard civilizational border” simply by adding several individually inconclusive propositions together.

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.

Blah blah blah. No historical or archaeological rule produces that conclusion. You have moved from:
“populations differed”
to
“therefore modern Pakistan is the exclusive successor state.”
Modern political succession to a Bronze Age civilization is not calculated by qpAdm. And since substantial IVC sites, some older and larger, lie inside modern India, “exclusive successor” becomes especially difficult to sustain.

You do you. We stayed civilisationally closer to the IVC than your chop suey of a nation could ever be.

Define “civilizationally closer” in a way that can actually be measured.

Religion?

Language?

Urban form?

Agriculture?

Genetics?

Territory?

Material culture?

Squatting on a land you got out of a partition deal because you are Muslims. Goes on with "We wuzz kangs"

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.

A Mizo ethnic man doesn't need to prove Harappan ancestry before the Republic of India can maintain Dholavira.
Your standard would become absurd almost immediately if applied consistently inside Pakistan.

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?

Neither modern state has an exclusive claim to the entire civilization.
Pakistan has Harappa and Mohenjodaro. India has Dholavira, Rakhigarhi, Kalibangan, Lothal and many other sites.
Your Romania analogy actually supports shared and geographically distributed inheritance better than exclusive ownership. Good analogy for a change.

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.

Yeah, Which is why Harappan linguistic continuity with eastern languages is not demonstrable. And Harappan linguistic discontinuity with eastern languages is also not demonstrable.

You keep behaving as if only the first proposition requires evidence.
Scientific method does not say "If continuity is not proven, discontinuity becomes true." It says the relationship remains unresolved.

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.

I don't imagine such a link.
I've never said "Harappan definitely spoke a language ancestral to Magadhi." I'm saying "we don't know."

You're the one who originally asserted “linguistically not the same.”

Then later retreated to “no linguistic connection is demonstrable.”

If that is possible, you can go ahead and claim Olmec is "related" too. What gibberish you speak yourself, never mind the ancients.

Again, no. “Relationship undetermined” does not mean “related.”
Olmec is not shown to be related.

Harappan is not shown to be related.
Nor, merely from undecipherment, are they shown to be unrelated.

This is elementary logic.
Unknown doesn't mean same.
Unknown doesn't mean different.
Unknown is simply unknown.

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

That is not how historical linguistics works. If you discover an undeciphered inscription and cannot identify its language, your null evidentiary position is language unidentified.
You cannot declare it unrelated to every known language until somebody deciphers it.
Otherwise every undeciphered ancient language would automatically constitute its own isolated language family until proven otherwise. That is not a legitimate inference

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

Sure, but that's not my argument.
My argument is the inverse, difference between scripts is also inadequate evidence for separating two civilizations. Script choice is one cultural feature among many.
Related languages can use different scripts. Unrelated languages can share a script. And a single empire can administer regions using different scripts. So script difference cannot bear the weight you've placed on it.

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".

Yes, within the Achaemenid imperial vocabulary Hindush was the province/people they claimed as subject territory. But that's exactly why you cannot automatically equate Achaemenid Hindush with every later Greek usage of India. Achaemenid Hindush is an imperial administrative designation. Greek “India” subsequently develops into a broader geographical category. Herodotus himself discusses Indians beyond the specific Persian subject context later Greek geographical usage expands still further. So saying “Achaemenids controlled all of their Hindush" doesn't prove “therefore every later use of India beyond that province is erroneous.” It only tells us what Hindush meant in that imperial context.

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.

Except the Republic did not invent the larger geographical use of “India.” That usage long predates 1947. Your objection is therefore not that the geographical meaning never existed.
You've explicitly acknowledged that it did. Your objection is that a modern state occupying a large portion of that geographical India adopted the geographical name as its state name.
That's a political naming argument.
It cannot retroactively make the older geographical usage false. I'm sure it gives you immense pain when we use the name India (for whatever reason) but as an enemy that gives me immense satisfaction.

Who will you cry to when we deny you a visa to come and look at your fatherland, well, one of many fatherlands?

Probably nobody.
I can look at Rakhigarhi, Dholavira, Kalibangan and Lothal without crossing the Pakistani border.
Besides, who wakes up and thinks, “Oh yes, let's go to a corner in Pakistan to admire 2500+ BCE brick drainage systems?” An archeology nerd probably.
It's not the Egyptian pyramids, not Machu Picchu, not some mystical lost wonder. For the average man it's an excavated Bronze Age city of baked bricks and streets hardly the sort of “fatherland pilgrimage” you're fantasizing about. We have enough modern architectural marvels we can admire in our lands that's awe inspiring.

 

[Master Chief]

You interpretation is not facts. It's your cognitive issues dressed up as facts.

Take this stupidity for example you wrote “South Asians gave direct rise to AASI at the start of that period, i.e. 5000 years ago.” No. Aasi did not originate 5000 years ago.

Narasimhan says AASI as a deeply diverged ancestral lineage, splitting around the same broad deep time radiation that produced lineages ancestral to East Asians, Andamanese and Papuans. And you think(iNtErPreT) that was in 3000 BCE. Talks about my capabilities at interpreting his works and writes shit like this as your "interpretation".

Just read it again. I repeat I'm just a dumb-ass B.Tech guy I quit biology in 12th grade, I never claim to be Biology wizard. Yet I can simply read and understand what's being written in the links you provided.

Here is something you missed right under that map which says "The ovals and admixture events are positioned according to guesses about their relative dates to help in visualization, although the dates are in no way meant to be exact." What is your interpretation now?

Idiot. I referred to the 5000 years only in the context of the timeline in the charts. I jolly well am aware of AASI's origins and that it is a group with older origins. How can anyone pinpoint an exact year for such a group's origin point anyway - are you moronic that you think I even inferred this?

Quit strawmanning and misrepresenting. These are the last bastions available to you and will quickly flood under the weight of your fabrications about what I said or did not say.

Feel free to "guess" about the ovals and admixture events better than Narasimhan with your BTEC background.

You've mistaken a genetic endpoint for a geographical endpoint.

Narasimhan says “one end of the cline is consistent with being entirely AHG related” Correct.
Now show me where Narasimhan says “that end is the gangetic plain.”
The figure is not a map with Sindh at one end and Bengal at the other. It is a plot of genetic affinity. The “ends” are ancestry space endpoints.

Coping about a map that is clearly visible to anyone on this thread. You're a simple village idiot.

And Narasimhan tells us exactly where the pre 2000 BCE Indus Periphery Cline in that analysis comes from 'outlier individuals from two sites in cultural contact with the IVC.'

Those sites are Gonur and Shahr e Shoktha. Not Varanasi, not Patna not the gangetic plain.

So this sentence of yours
“The eastern end of the cline ( ganga land) must have been the entirely AHG related end.” is not Narasimhan.

And Narasimhan tells us exactly where the pre 2000 BCE Indus Periphery Cline in that analysis comes from 'outlier individuals from two sites in cultural contact with the IVC.'

Those sites are Gonur and Shahr e Shoktha. Not Varanasi, not Patna not the gangetic plain.

So this sentence of yours
“The eastern end of the cline ( ganga land) must have been the entirely AHG related end.” is not Narasimhan.

The words “must have been” are doing all the work.
You have taken an inferred ancestry endpoint and assigned it a geographical location for which Narasimhan had no ancient individuals.

Moron. Look at the figures if you can't make sense of the text. I have not made these inferences. NARASIMHAN HIMSELF HAS. LET ME REMIND YOU: YOU CLAIMED I MYSELF INVENTED THE GANGETIC PLAINS GENOMIC INFERENCE BUT I THEN SHOWED YOU THAT NARASIMHAN HIMSELF HAS MADE THE INFERENCE. LOOK AGAIN AT THE CHARTS.

TELL ME, WHICH "END" OF "THE CLINE" CAN POSSIBLY CONCEIVABLY BE THE ONE THAT IS NEARLY COMPLETELY AASI? WHERE MUST THESE INDIVIDUALS EXIST IF WE FOLLOW ALL LOGICAL INFERENCES FROM NARASIMHAN HIMSELF? If they're not at the eastern end of the region being discussed then there is no point in you reading genomic research papers because you have failed to acknowledge the works of others in this field for your own ulterior motivations.

Read the article, where Narasimhan himself claims his entire plan is to make "INFERENCES". IT IS NOT SOME DIRTY WORD just because you feel it is. You're coping perpetually because you think "inference" is somehow insufficient for science to proceed. If inference is based on solid data, then what is your problem with it? Narasimhan's own words...

"We leveraged ancient DNA to place constraints on the genetic structure of the ANI and ASI and, in conjunction with other lines of evidence, to make inferences about when and where they formed. By modeling modern South Asians along with ancient individuals from sites in cultural contact with the IVC, we inferred a likely genetic signature for people of the Indus Valley Civilization (IVC) which reached its maturity in northwestern South Asia 2600–1900 CE. "

"Inferences", "inferred"...do you see now how science works?

In fact Narasimhan explicitly says, "While we do not have ancient DNA data from either of the two statistically reconstructed source populations for the Modern Indian Cline, the ASI or the ANI, in what follows we co-analyze our ancient DNA data in conjunction with modern data to characterize the exact ancestry of the ASI, and to provide constraints on the ANI."
So even the ASI itself is statistically reconstructed here. And the deeper AASI source is reconstructed as well. Yet somehow you've managed to turn that into a directly localized population in “ganga land” with a precise pre IVC percentage.

"Reconstructed saaaaaar!"

Did I reconstruct the genomes of these populations?

Did my model show that a nearly entirely AASI genome existed before the mature Harappan era at one end of the Indus Valley cline??

No. Narasimhan did all of this.

Your argument is with the source material, yet you pretend I must be the one at fault because you dare not challenge Narasimhan on the model directly.

If you don't like his work, inferences and definition of AASI, do drop him an email.

You must think I'm stupid. I know why you're stalling on the definition and geographical lay of AASI in the pre-mature Harappan era. The rest of the story is unbearable for you and your Btech sensitivities to handle.

You looked at the ancestry space “AHG end” of the figure and decided
“That must geographically be the east, i.e. ganga-land.”
But when we actually sequence an IVC individual from the eastern geographical side in, Rakhigarhi, she is strongly Iranian related. That alone should tell you why you cannot turn the horizontal direction of a genetic cline into longitude.

Hahahahhahaa. Such cope.

Bikram is now resorting to lecturing me about a Harappan genome to educate me on the genomic constitution of pre-harappan gangetics. Rakhigiri specimen is LITERALLY FROM THE HARAPPAN MATURE PHASE. She tells you nothing about the pre-existing gangetic population and she was never even used in this way by Shinde et al. Like you yourself said, the gangetic genome in the pre-harappan era has been MODELLED by Narasimhan, a model that you take personal umbrage to.

But then you say “One end of the cline is entirely AHG-related!” Yes.
And I will happily repeat it with you
ONE END OF THE GENETIC CLINE IS MODELED AS ENTIRELY AHG-RELATED.
Now add the sentence you keep infiltrating it with.
“AND NARASIMHAN IDENTIFIES THIS END AS THE PRE-IVC GANGETIC POPULATION.”
Citation please.

"one end of the cline is consistent with being entirely AHG-related"

He has repeatedly re-referenced this throughout his work but you just failed to notice.

"Three Ancestry Clines That Succeeded Each Other in Time in South Asia. We identify a unique 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. "

"Succeeded each other"

"Temporally"

"And geographically"

He goes on to say:

"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, 27)."

"...RATHER THAN WESTWARD GENE FLOW BRINGING AN ANCESTRY UNIQUE TO SOUTH ASIA ONTO THE IRANIAN PLATEAU..."

"All fitting models include as sources Central_Steppe_MLBA (or a group with a similar ancestry profile), a group of Indus Periphery Cline individuals, and either AHG or a subgroup of Indus Periphery Cline individuals with relatively high AHG-related ancestry (13), Fig S51)"

"...EITHER AHG OR A SUBGROUP OF IPC INDIVIDUALS WITH RELATIVELY HIGH AHG-RELATED ANCESTRY"

He then says this: "The graph fits the component of South Asian ancestry with no West Eurasian relatedness (AASI - “Ancestral Ancient South Asians”) as an Asian lineage that split off around the time that East Asian, Andaman Islander, and Australian aboriginal ancestors separated from each other, consistent with the hypothesis that eastern and southern Asian lineages derives from an eastward spread that in a short span gave rise to lineages leading to AASI, East Asians, Andamanese Hunter Gatherers, and Australians (55) (Fig. 5). "

THIS STATEMENT LITERALLY DECLARES THE EXISTENCE OF AASI TO BE "SOUTH ASIAN ANCESTRY WITH NO WEST EURASIAN (IRANIAN) RELATEDNESS". The same statement declares freely Narasimhan's inferences regarding their origin point in time.

NOW WOULD YOU LIKE TO SEE "FIGURE 5" THAT HE REFERS TO IN THIS STATEMENT?? I'M NOT SURE BUT YOU MAY HAVE SEEN THIS ONE BEFORE! Lolz.



If you disagree with the statements and the figures above, provide an alternative theory on why the gangetic region marked in this map cannot possibly be entirely AASI (or even "relatively high AHG-RELATED") derived in the pre-harappan mature phase. You dispute it - fair enough. Explain why. What would the other component(s) likely be in your opinion? Keep it mind he has already discussed some minor Iranian contribution did exist due to west-east diffusion, but it would certainly be negligible and would be nothing compared to the substantial burst of Iranian genome delivered to Ganga via the mature Harappan phase genome.

Narasimhan does not directly state “Pre-Harappan Gangetics were 50–70% AASI.”

Look at the above post. You try and convince A SINGLE READER OF THIS THREAD that Narasimhan is not making this claim repeatedly. In fact, at times he claims the percentage is MORE than this.

At this point you need to resit your Btech I think.

One end of the GENETIC CLlNE.
Now quote the next sentence where Narasimhan says:
“This end corresponds geographically to the pre harappan gangetic plain.”

It's all there in the above post with diagrams. Enjoy, in between revision sessions for Btech resits of course.

Which means a genetic gradient by itself does not prove or disprove a hard political or cultural border.
So now you need independent evidence for your hard border.
You keep saying “all features” establish it, but the individual components you've offered do not do what you claim.

Genetics: gradients and admixture.

Language: Harappan language unknown.

Writing: different scripts at different chronological horizons.

Politics: different states, which nobody disputed.

Archaeology: IVC sites extend into modern India.

Genetics: there was no significant "admixture" (some admixture yes, but not significant) before the terminal phase of the IVC, when its inhabitants were forced to move east and south wholesale. This is demonstrated by Narasimhan's and others' works. A hard genetic border existed. Read again about AASI having "no west eurasian relatedness" in the extracts above.

Language: yes, Harappan language unknown, a feature which does not prove contiguity. Can ancient Olmec be cited as positive evidence for contiguity with Spanish in South America?

Writing: different

Poilitics: different except when under imperial conquest (Mauryans, Afghans, Mughals, British).

Archaeology: yes, shared by Pakistan and parts of North India. Just as Roman artefacts are found in Romania. Is Romania a Roman successor state, as the name suggests? Is FYROM a Macedonian successor state, as the name suggests?

Define “civilizationally closer” in a way that can actually be measured.

I have done. Also, religion. Harappans ate beef with gusto and there is no evidence of caste hierarchy in Harappan civilisation. The religious rivalry is described in your own scriptures, so if you wish to use them as a source you will need to rationalise the concept of "mleccha" and explain to the readership why a group marginalised as "the other" in ancient history should suddenly be brought under your jurisdiction.

You can't suddenly develop an affinity for outcasts (maybe outcastes?) just to get one over on Pakistan.

Squatting on a land you got out of a partition deal because you are Muslims. Goes on with "We wuzz kangs"

Not "partition", but the birth of two independent nation states from a previous imperial asset of the British. Nothing within that landmass was "yours" to even be "partitioned", let alone to cry over now.

Tell me about "partition" in a more appropriate thread making reference to the mythical "united India" that existed before the British made their move to claim the whole geographical region.

A Mizo ethnic man doesn't need to prove Harappan ancestry before the Republic of India can maintain Dholavira.
Your standard would become absurd almost immediately if applied consistently inside Pakistan.

K. Cope.

Your Romania analogy actually supports shared and geographically distributed inheritance better than exclusive ownership. Good analogy for a change.

We don't care about what archaeological sites fall under your remit. Tell me how Romania can declare itself the successor state of the Roman Empire in lieu of Italy's claim.

Scientific method does not say "If continuity is not proven, discontinuity becomes true." It says the relationship remains unresolved.

It's true until proven otherwise because it is the default state.

Ancient Olmec is not related to Spanish, until you can prove otherwise.

Enjoy.

Again, no. “Relationship undetermined” does not mean “related.”
Olmec is not shown to be related.

Yes, "is not shown to be related" actually means "is not related, until I can prove otherwise".

Scientific method.

Yes, within the Achaemenid imperial vocabulary Hindush was the province/people they claimed as subject territory. But that's exactly why you cannot automatically equate Achaemenid Hindush with every later Greek usage of India. Achaemenid Hindush is an imperial administrative designation. Greek “India” subsequently develops into a broader geographical category. Herodotus himself discusses Indians beyond the specific Persian subject context later Greek geographical usage expands still further. So saying “Achaemenids controlled all of their Hindush" doesn't prove “therefore every later use of India beyond that province is erroneous.” It only tells us what Hindush meant in that imperial context.

The primordial imposition of the term was clearly well defined. Beyond that era, "India" became a geographical simplification for myriad different tribes and civilisations. Ever heard of the "East Indies" or "West Indies". I know it's difficult to accept but you're just a collective term for heathens along vector X in a white explorer's atlas.

Here is what "Africa" looked like at first for Herodotus. The definition then expanded as more of that continent was explored. Does that map mean all of that continent should be called "Libya"?? Interestingly enough, look at the river where "Indians" are said to live.

Probably nobody.
I can look at Rakhigarhi, Dholavira, Kalibangan and Lothal without crossing the Pakistani border.

Excellent. Am truly happy for you my Romanian/North Macedonian/Bharati friend. Who knows, in better times, I may visit and examine these key sites of "lost" Pakistani heritage, as an ambassador - if you will - on behalf of the precursor nation.