“The ancient Harappan genome, sequenced and described in the journal
Cell, was compared to the DNA of modern South Asians, revealing that the people of the IVC were the primary ancestors of most living Indians. Both modern South Asian DNA and the Harappan genome have a telltale mixture of ancient Iranian DNA and a smattering of Southeast Asian hunter-gatherer lineages. "Ancestry like that in the IVC individuals is the primary ancestry source in South Asia today,” co-author David Reich, a geneticist at Harvard Medical School, said in a statement.”
Ancient Iranian here mean Zagrosian.
Ancient Zagrosian and ASI mix is older then IVC. Middle caste Dravidians tend to be more Zagrosian shifted then tribal or dalit dravidians.
<sigh>
Here we go again -
Round and round the mulberry bush.
It is boring to to watch as some aspiring showman proceeds to re-hash what is already known, and is then re-crafted as a strikingly original scientific waypoint, and finally, with a magnificent, circus ring-master's flourish, given some ethno-nationalist twist and presented to an audience swooning in awe.
Very briefly, there is only one single difference between the narrative in the post cited, and what has been the current scientific consensus on the very broad process of genetic descent in the sub-continent.
First, the narrative that is standard.
1) Migrants from the Iranian plateau and the uplands to its east, carrying knowledge of agriculture, drifted down the western slopes of the Indus Valley, forming larger and larger settlements and mingling with the existing hunter-gatherers population to form the basic genetic profile that marked the IVC.
These processes presumably took place earlier than 3500 - 3300 BC.
2) As is generally accepted, the IVC was at its prime of developed existence between 2600 and 1900 BC. Increasingly less organised remnants have been dated to around 1300 BC.
ALL these dates are indicative, very broadly indicative.
3) Early incursions by migrants from the stepped, from the BMAC, may have commenced around 1500 BC, but that is an approximation proposed by linguists.
4) To return to the point, today's sub-continent is broadly described as a mix of Ancestral North Indian and Ancestral South Indian. There have been no violent objections to this, in Academe.
The ASI profile is found to be a mixture of the IVC profile, already containing a proportion of hunter-gatherers, with more hunter-gatherer
stock.
The ANI profile has the IVC profile,plus hunter-gatherer stock, plus a difference - the addition of steppe migrant genetic elements.
-------------
That is the big picture that has been for some time.
Does it differ from the narrative of the cited post? No, flourishes and embellishments apart.
What of these flourishes and embellishments?
They deserve another post.
Put another way, people posting, such as Yours Truly, do NOT deserve another laborious session of eye-strain, striving to present complex issues in a simple way with the aid of a SmartPhone keyboard.
