I've noticed that lately there's been a significant number of Indian nationalists in /his/ complaining here. This thread isn't for you. Nobody cares about your delusional ideology. The true ethnic origin of the "Harrapans" is not yet fully understood, but I think there are some loose ends that can help us. Apparently, there are some interesting similarities between the Elamite language and Dravidian (possibly the language of the "Harrapans," as in the related photo). The author even reconstructs a proto-Elamo-Dravidian. Thoughts?
>>18532835Interesting topic. This ancient people, descendants of the Iranians, built the Indus Valley Civilization after intermingling with the natives. These linguistic connections with the Elamite and Zagros worlds only reinforce this idea.
>>18532835The racial character of the first indus river valey civilization was understood to be white for effectively all of history until modern times when afrocentrism and Indian nationalism started polluting legitimate inquiries into the truth with their ideological agendas.
>>18532841Stop trolling>>18532840>after intermingling with the natives.I presume we are talking about the AASIpeoples? But what is the possibility of them having remained homogeneous as Zagronian populations?
>>18532835This was already well known though. The genetics have been tested, and they were a mix between farmers from Iran and the local Indians.>>18532841No one knew about the IVC before the 1920s, Christovagina man.
>>18532844We have samples of Harrapans (Shahr-i-Sokhta) and they are modeled as ranging from 30-40% AASI.
>>18532845>>18532848I'm not the OP. And no, we don't know. The Shahr-i-Sokhta samples are migrants who weren't even found inside India. There are no "IVC" samples from India proper. It's quite possible that these samples are causing a sampling bias.
>>18532835They undoubtedly spoke an ancient Dravic dialect, and I am aware of those connections with the Elamites linguistically, And this has become very plausible recently.but I haven't heard of them both being part of the same family, which is interesting though.
>>18532852We have a sample from Rakhigarhi, identified as "I6133", which is similar to other samples from Shahr-i-Sokhta (periphery of the Indus)
>>18532867Yes, I think I expressed myself poorly. I agree that simply saying they were "half Shahr-i-Sokhta and half AASI" might be too simplistic. I personally believe that the amount of AASI ancestry could vary widely we don't even have a proper proxy for AASI, usually using "onge".
The most ironic thing for Indians, when they pretend to be the original Adivasis of India and even enter politics with Muh AASI, is that most Munda men trace a patrilineal lineage to southern China/Southeast Asia, with strong genetic miscegenation with AASI women (showing the paternal language hypothesis)... HAHAHA They themselves came from Southeast Asia, from southern China, and imposed and dominated the native AASI tribes in eastern India. LMAO India was sexually abused 3 times by different peoples consecutively. And that's why Munda men from central-eastern India have more than 67% of the Y chromosome haplogroup O-M95 (O2a1). But there must have been something in those AASI women for so many Zagronian and Southeast Asian men to mix with them.
>>18532871>>18532867Furthermore, that's what I'm talking about. A sample "I4411" from Rakhigarhi has a high AASI (Andamanese as a proxy) admixture. The quantities varied considerably, and I don't think they were all more than 40% AASI. While most IVC samples were predominantly Iran-N, and perhaps some samples were quite homogeneous.
>>18532884>But there must have been something in those AASI women for so many Zagronian and Southeast Asian men to mix with them.Saar no saar it was neolithic Iranian mans who be takings the AASI womanses saar.
>>18532888>>18532867>>18532845
>>18532863Apparently, there's a Australian aboriginal substratum in Dravidian languages.The theory is about Australian aboriginal languages sharing linguistic features with the pre Dravidian languages(AASI) of South India. The connections are tantalizing close but not close enough.https://www.academia.edu/44051940/Australian_Substratum_in_Dravidian_Mother_Tongue_XI_2006?email_work_card=title
Mean stature of Mesolithic Hunter-gatherers used to be:Male- (Mahadaha): 181.1 cm (5'11.5") (Damdama): 179.1 cm (5'10.5") Female- (Mahadaha): 169.3 cm (5'7") (Damdama): 173.0 cm (5'8")Steppgroids btfo
>>18532835The Harrapans were Pakistani, not Indian. The only similarity between them is their common ANI ancestors, but most of this was brought to North India by the Aryans.
>>18532966>there is a difference between Pakistanis and IndiansWhere does this absurd belief come from?
>>18532972I wonder
