Joe Shearer
PROFESSIONAL
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2009
- Messages
- 27,493
- Reaction score
- 162
- Country
- Location
I am not sure what you are implying here, whether my statistics about the populations are false or the inferences that I have drawn from them are false. Your original comment about the various 'dances' of the sub-continent uniting them came off as highly idealistic, romantic and downright hilarious. The icing on the cake was that you didn't even bother to leave an 'Indus' dance form and detail us exactly how it was related to those of the Ganges and Dravidia regions. Do their hands move in a particular direction? Or their hips sway in an identical fashion? We may never know.
Secondly, about the other thread in which I can't comment on. The Indo-Greek Kingdom proper, didn't go as eastward as to Mathura. Offshoots of it, however carried raids as far upto Mathura. It's main/original territories and the various raids carried out by it's offshoots were seperate. The capital of the Indo-Greeks under Menander the First was Sakala (Sialkot) in modern-day Punjab and regional capitals such as Taxila and Charsadda existed.
You do note in your comment the historical seperation of the Indus territories from those of the Ganges and Dravidia (South of the Vindhyas) regions by acknowledging the seperation of the Gandharans, Indo-Parthians and the Shahis from the Guptas and the other Ganges-Dravidia kingdoms however then go onto claim that implying any sort of dualism between them is absurd, without even bothering to explain why. That, according to me, is truly absurd.
Furthermore, your claim of the Harappans being of the same ethnic stock as modern-day Indians and Pakistanis apart from Pashtuns is dubious and has no base in genealogy or anthropology. About 85% or so of the Indus Valley Civilization was based in modern day Pakistan and at the time when it flourished, the Ganges and Dravida regions were still uncivilized with no culture. We do know that the Ganges and Dravida regions only got civilized in the Middle Iron Age stages (800-500 BC), when proper axes were invented to clear the forest regions and before that it was just a forested region inhabited by uncivilized tribes.
Your statement saying that no new genetic stock has entered the sub-continent from out of it (in the last 10,000 years) is where we have to draw the line, really. At this point you are just going on without providing any sources or citations for your claims, indulging in pseudo-scientific statements.
https://www.google.com.pk/url?sa=t&...tNQ2n2gUvh12ev9Xg&sig2=GU68-hqZ2X3Dc_eaarKJOQ
This is the Harvard Genealogical Study of India which has taken samples from vast communities across the sub-continent and it has found two major components, the ANI (which is related to Europeans, Central Asians and Iranians) and the ASI (unique to India). The ANI component peaks in the Pakistani samples while mostly being found in North-Western Indians and the ASI peaks in South Indians while mostly being found in Central and Northern Indians. Furthermore, the admixture between these two distinctive groups is dated to 3000-500 BC, so your claim goes down the drain.
Your pretentious little answer above precisely explains why I dread going back into these systematically recurring controversies.
I joined the forum in 2009. Since then, this precise controversy has come up, as far as memory recalls, at least half-a-dozen times, perhaps more; I haven't been keeping count. The same dull and witless points occur again and again, each time put forward by someone with the air of having discovered a bright new nugget of information all by himself. Any similarity between these initiatives is not accidental; just as there are dogged doctrinaires on the Indian side, who will not listen to any argument put forward by a Pakistani, there are those same doctrinaires on the Pakistani side, etc., etc., and we have to deal with their rag tag and bobtail, which comes onto this forum to show off their bright new pieces of knowledge.
I am 66. I have earned my position through a combination of practical work and theoretical grounding. I really don't have to take this crap any longer. At least in my real-world job, I get paid (very poorly) for it.
Please go ahead and flounce around; all the points that you refer to, starting from no introduction of new genetic stock from 10,000 BC, through the ASI and ANI genealogical sub-types, through the probable ultimate place of rest of those who were residents of the IVC, the percolation of the remnants of their culture into the other systems around which a composite Indian culture was built and their own re-creation in harshly simplified form in the Indus Valley, all are available. But very frankly, I don't care whether you find out or suffer from your existing delusions. Even this explanation is not justified by the results likely to be achieved.
Ramzan Kareem.