Mind blowing artifacts may change our perception of Indus Valley civilization

[Naofumi]

thats not my theory thats rakhigarhi DNA findings. try to get educated about the area you are trying to be expert in.

regards

Lololol, Please give some to read this.
https://theprint.in/opinion/newsmak...-week-and-made-indians-ask-who-are-we/288151/

 

[masterchief_mirza]

please dont bing genetics into history section.

the notion of ASI and AASI has been debunked since J haplogroup (so called iranian farmer genes) has been found absent as well. comparing andamanese genes with indians is laughable, since andaman gene has no corellation with indian genes for instance R group or H group, the andamanese also speak austroasiatic languages completely unrelated to indian subcontinent.

regards

You cannot be serious. This is why your threads are looked upon with a healthy dose of default scepticism.

"The Genomic Formation of South and Central Asia
2 Authors: Vagheesh M. Narasimhan1,*, Nick Patterson2,3,*, Priya Moorjani4,5,+, Iosif Lazaridis1 et al"

Look that one up. To summarise, the distinction between the subcontinent's populations is not a black and white delineation. Nevertheless, there is clearly diffusion across the three (at least three) traditionally known groups but those three groups categorically exist. Never mind the genetic evidence or the cultural evidence, the linguistic evidence is overwhelming! Indo-European languages are distinct from the south Indian groups.

Anyway, I realise this is lost on you as you've already made your mind up that the Ganges is the centre of the universe and what not.

"Ashokan pillars" should simply be called "IVC pillars" appropriated for gangetic purposes.

 

[W.11]

Lololol, Please give some to read this.
https://theprint.in/opinion/newsmak...-week-and-made-indians-ask-who-are-we/288151/

The DNA study titled ‘An ancient Harappan genome lacks ancestry from Steppe pastoralists or Iranian farmers’, published Thursday in the science journal Cell, shows that there is no “detectable ancestry from Steppe pastoralists or from Anatolian and Iranian farmers” in the remains of the woman’s skeleton.

and what did i say anything different?

regards

 

[masterchief_mirza]

''mauryans appropriated IVC'' w

I was merely entertaining your hypothesis that there is some degree of linkage between the two. I'm saying, IF (and that's a big IF) such causality exists, it's an appropriation by the mauryans. In reality, IVC probably has nothing to do with the mauryans or Ashokan pillars - it's your original post that by virtue of its language made this tenuous link.

 

[padamchen]

I was merely entertaining your hypothesis that there is some degree of linkage between the two. I'm saying, IF (and that's a big IF) such causality exists, it's an appropriation by the mauryans. In reality, IVC probably has nothing to do with the mauryans or Ashokan pillars - it's your original post that by virtue of its language made this tenuous link.

Have you ever considered the possibility that the Mauryans were Iranic?

Just asking.

 

[masterchief_mirza]

Have you ever considered the possibility that the Mauryans were Iranic?

Just asking.

Plausible. Feel free to elaborate if you wish. I'm not some expert on these matters, merely an interested observer.

 

[W.11]

I was merely entertaining your hypothesis that there is some degree of linkage between the two. I'm saying, IF (and that's a big IF) such causality exists, it's an appropriation by the mauryans. In reality, IVC probably has nothing to do with the mauryans or Ashokan pillars - it's your original post that by virtue of its language made this tenuous link.

so even if i suggest there is a link between the IVC and mauryan pillars, how does it make mauryan appropriation of an age 1000+ years behind?

 

[padamchen]

Plausible. Feel free to elaborate if you wish. I'm not some expert on these matters, merely an interested observer.

There's a big paper by an Indian author no less. I did not follow it up because you know how it is with me and Iran.

People cannot digest that Porus was Persian.

They will flip and hunt me down if I take the Mauryans from them.

 

[masterchief_mirza]

so even if i suggest there is a link between the IVC and mauryan pillars, how does it make mauryan appropriation of an age 1000+ years behind?

"Indus valley civilization ivory objects which are in the shape of pillar models, actual pillars might have existed in the indus civilization, with inscriptions on them, these resemble Ashokan pillar traditions and post ashokan pillar traditions well into medieval periods."

Now going on what you wrote in your original post, you tell me what is the link? Why bring up two temporally disparate pillars and somehow contrive a link between them?

And once you have created that tenuous link, why now suggest that the appropriation theory is impossible?

IF the link exists (which YOU implied, not me), how can it be anything other than a flow of knowledge or art from the IVC to the mauryans?

Ptolemaic artefacts in Egypt came from Greece and Greek influence. Same argument should apply here.

 

[Naofumi]

The DNA study titled ‘An ancient Harappan genome lacks ancestry from Steppe pastoralists or Iranian farmers’, published Thursday in the science journal Cell, shows that there is no “detectable ancestry from Steppe pastoralists or from Anatolian and Iranian farmers” in the remains of the woman’s skeleton.

and what did i say anything different?

regards

First page of the study,

Now, you understand what the study actually says?

https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/vagheesh/files/piis0092867419309675.pdf

 

[masterchief_mirza]

There's a big paper by an Indian author no less. I did not follow it up because you know how it is with me and Iran.

People cannot digest that Porus was Persian.

They will flip and hunt me down if I take the Mauryans from them.

Porus is regarded as iranic by many isn't he?

 

[padamchen]

Porus is regarded as iranic by many isn't he?

Porus was a Persian satrap.

This was clearly chronicled by Arrian.

I've shared tons of info here in the past. I think it was as padamchen only if you want to search.

 

[W.11]

First page of the study,
View attachment 638971
Now, you understand what the study actually says?

https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/vagheesh/files/piis0092867419309675.pdf

mate you said ASI, i corrected you, you are peddling some nonsense which has been already debunked.

regards

 

[Naofumi]

There's a big paper by an Indian author no less. I did not follow it up because you know how it is with me and Iran.

People cannot digest that Porus was Persian.

They will flip and hunt me down if I take the Mauryans from them.

Please, don't spread bogus here. Porus and his land were/are firmly Indic, so were Mauryans.

 

[masterchief_mirza]

which has been already debunked

ASI debunked?? Wow.