Talk:Indo-Aryan migrations/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Genetics, invasion and Ria1

@Pebble101: yo've twice diff diff removed sourced info, and replaced it with other sourced info. There are several problems with this removal/insertion:

• your edit-summary says "This has already been debunked in newer studies dating from 2003 to 2014, as given in the source from sahoo to underhill to sharma to et al." What exactly is it that has been debunked:

• "Several studies rule out the possibility of a large-scale invasion by Indo-Aryans,"
• "but do show traces of later influxes of genetic material,"
• "while others have argued for the possibility of genetic influx by Aryan migrations."
• "Genetic studies also show that language shift is possible without a change in genetics."

• What exactly is it that you want to say with the info you added:

"Haplogroup R1a1 in particular is associated with Indo-Aryans in South Asia. In South Asia R1a1 has been observed often with high frequency in a number of demographic groups, especially among Indo-Aryans. Its parent clade Haplogroup R1a is believed to have its origins in the South Asia or the Eurasian Steppe, whereas its successor clade R1a1 has the highest frequency and time depth in South Asia, making it a possible locus of origin. However, the uneven distribution of this haplogroup among South Asian castes and tribal populations makes a Central Eurasian origin of this lineage a strong possibility as well."

You do seem to suggest that the Indo-Aryans originated in India, but it's not clear that this is what you want to say.

• Your addition looks like WP:OR. The first sentence is unsourced: "Haplogroup R1a1 in particular is associated with Indo-Aryans in South Asia." What do you mean with "Indo-Aryans"? The present people of India? Or specific historical people?
• Check "In South Asia R1a1 has been observed often with high frequency in a number of demographic groups, especially among Indo-Aryans.(Sengupta et al. 2005)(Sahoo et al. 2006)":

• Which publication is Sengupta et al. 2005?
• Sahoo 2006:

• "The Y-chromosomal data consistently suggest a largely South Asian origin for Indian caste communities and therefore argue against any major influx, from regions north and west of India, of people associated either with the development of agriculture or the spread of the Indo-Aryan language family." - how's that different from "no large-scale invasion"?
• "Several studies have argued that, in contrast to the relative uniformity of mtDNA, the Y chromosomes of Indian populations display relatively small genetic distances to those of West Eurasians (17), linking this finding to hypothetical migrations by Indo-Aryan speakers. Wells et al. (18) highlighted M17 (R1a) as a potential marker for one such event, as it demonstrates decreasing frequencies from Central Asia toward South India." - not exactly an argument pro Indian origins, is it?

• The section which you changed is a summary of the extended section further on in th earticle. If you want to add this info, it should be done there, at the appropriate place. But without the WP:SYNTHESIS that it is now.

Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:17, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

References

Bangladesh

Regarding this edit: the question is not whether Bangladesh is part of northern India, but whether the Indo-Aryan migrations reached as far as Bangladesh. They didn't. The Vedic culture reached Bangladesh only in the later Vedic period. We're not talking then anymore about Indo-Aryan migrations, but about Sanskritization. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:26, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Weasel-wording in the lede

The last paragraph in the lede contains a lot of weasel-wording and reflects a Hindu nationalist POV. "The debate about the origin of Indo-Aryan peoples is controversial, resulting in political agitation and inflamed sentiments.[9] Some have rejected the theory of Indo-Aryan origins outside of India, maintaining that the Indo-Aryan people and languages originated in India." First, the controversy is only found in India. Second "Some have rejected the theory..." is classic WP:WEASEL. The "some" are Hindu nationalists, part of whose agenda is hide the fact that it is they who oppose the theory, and attempt to make the controversy seem more widespread and general than it is. Athenean (talk) 18:55, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

The whole "in India" narrative should be classified as WP:FRINGE and treated accordingly, that is, virtually ignored, especially in the lead, IMHO. The Hindu nationalists are the equivalent of flat earthers or creationists (or "Alexander was Slavic" proponents). --Taivo (talk) 19:04, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Taivo has a possible academic WP:COI, since they dismiss any scholar that goes against their POV.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 19:06, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Academic COI? How so? Please elaborate with a detailed comparison of my CV, Indo-European studies, and Indian politics. You better be able to put your money where your mouth is when making such accusations. --Taivo (talk) 21:18, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

• Good point. I've removed it pending a better way to say 'controversial'. Also, the current text was not properly sourced (the source only says 'controversial', not the rest). --regentspark (comment) 21:24, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

A left-over of some heated discussions. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 21:32, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

• I reverted Athenean's edit as part of my routine daily check. Sorry to see that it resulted in an edit-war. Now that I re-read his text, I think it is quite ok.
  • It is controversial in India. Fact. It is opposed by Hindu nationalists. Fact. So, I am happy to go with his version.
  • Yes, it is opposed by some scholars elsewhere, like Schaefer etc. But it is a marginal position.
  • It is opposed by some normal people in India too (outside the Hindu nationalist sphere), but we are not saying that everybody that opposes it is a Hindu nationalist. It is clearly that the Hindu nationalists are the main opposition camp. So, again, it is quite ok to go with it.

- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:08, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree that the fact that it is controversial and political in India needs to be included. But we should work out how we say it first. In particular, the wording should make it clear that this is the mainstream theory, that the alternate 'indigenous aryan' theory is considered a fringe one, and that it is associated (mostly is fine) with Hindu nationalists. Something along the lines of A controversial view that Indo Aryan languages originated in India and then spread outward is promoted by scholars associated with Hindu Nationalism. Though this alternative theory has some traction in India, it is considered a fringe view by mainstream scholars.--regentspark (comment) 03:57, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree that a mention somewhere in an appropriate place in the article is appropriate, but fringe theories have no place in the lead, which is a summary of the main points of the article. Fringe theories, by definition, are not main points of the topic. I will oppose any mention of this fringe political theory in the lead, but not in some other appropriate place in the article. --Taivo (talk) 04:20, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

I think I agree with Taivo.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 04:22, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree that the fringe "Out of India" theory need to be mentioned in the lede. However, the article has a whole section entitled "Controversy" so a brief mention that the theory is opposed by Hindu nationalist groups would be appropriate. I also think we should mention that the theory is broadly supported in academic circles. How about "The theory has broad support among academics. However, it is opposed by Hindu nationalists on ideological grounds." Athenean (talk) 07:46, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

That's good and sufficient wording for the "Controversy" section. (I'm hoping that you mistyped when you said you agreed that it needed to be mentioned in the lead. The agreement actually seems to be that it should not be in the lead.) --Taivo (talk) 08:38, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree. The 'Indigenous Aryans' view is not a "theory", much less an "alternative" theory. (A theory has to explain all the available facts.) There is just political debate. Athenean's wording is quite accurate. - Kautilya3 (talk) 10:36, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Still "Acceptance" of Aryan Theory?

WP:NOTFORUM. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:27, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

The following articles are well researched that are enough to show/prove that Aryan theory is mis-leading and wrong. "All started with Sanskrit word "Arya" which does not means Aryaan" The links of articles are: 1- http://www.stephen-knapp.com/aryan_invasion_theory_the_final_nail_in_its_coffin.htm 2- http://uwf.edu/lgoel/documents/amythofaryaninvasionsofindia.pdf 3- http://www.stephen-knapp.com/solid_evidence_debunking_aryan_invasion.htm There are many more 'Proofs' available in the form of well researched articles that shows that Aryan invasion Hypothesis is purely wrong. The number of articles which are proofs which includes the Archaeological findings are more than number of articles supporting Aryan Invasion Hypothesis, thus should be discarded for lack of evidence & information should be corrected ASAP so it won't mis-guide people anymore. Some of the proofs are the topics by Swami Vivekanada himself. I believe it should be revise again and information should be corrected on all the Wikipedia Pages. Demise007 (talk) 15:57, 23 February 2016 (UTC) Please read Talk:Indigenous Aryans/Archive 3#RfC: the "Indigenous Aryans" theory is fringe-theory. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:52, 23 February 2016 (UTC) Clear my one doubt, if I want to discuss about this hypothesis with Evidence, where i can do that? @Joshua Jonathan: You might try wordpress.com. - Kautilya3 (talk) 18:20, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Entire genetics section is WP:OR

The entire genetics section is WP:OR. We discussed this stuff previously HERE with even admin @Dougweller: agreeing that it is OR. WP: OR states "you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented." With one exception, none of the genetics studies mention Aryan Migration.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 00:14, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Not an OR. Removal of that content (hardly 1/8th similar) from a different page has to do nothing with this article. Sources mention Indo Aryan Migration theory, and this section was written by a few editors thus its important to keep. Capitals00 (talk) 04:37, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Except Metspalu et al. 2011 and a couple of newspaper articles, these sources don't mention Aryans.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 04:42, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

That was another discussion, at Indigenous Aryans. Vic too, take a look at Wikipedia:Genetic research on the origins of India's population again. For both of you: those studies do mention the Indo-Aryan migrations, and the topic of the peopling of India is related to the question if the Indo-Aryan migrations left a genetic footprint, and if not, if this refutes the IAmt. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:14, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

For Vic (hey, I'm the easter bunny, tossin gout nice eggs!): "Based on this research, Lalji Singh, a co-author of Reich, concludes that these findings show that "[t]here is no genetic evidence that Indo-Aryans invaded or migrated to India".[web 15][web 16][web 17]." Sigh... Time for breakfast. Have a virtual cup of coffee wtih me, please. All the best, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:23, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Singh doesn't refer to Reich 2009. Reich 2009 should be eliminated from the article, since it doesn't mention Aryan migration.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 13:29, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

I'll check Singh again too. Reich et al. (2009), Metspalu et al. (2011), and Moorjani et al. (2013) are related; it's quite obvious that Reich et al. (2009) is relevant here. I'll check that one too. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:09, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Singh refers to Metspalu et al. (2011). Therefore there is no basis of Reich 2009 being in the article.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 14:12, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Reich (2009): "is higher in traditionally upper caste and Indo-European speakers." "Indo-European speakers" is clearly related to Indo-European migrations. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:13, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

JJ, please eliminate outdated genetic studies from before 2003.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 14:57, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

At the to-do-list! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:59, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

The myth of 50,000 year old populations

I have deleted all the WP:OR about 50,000 years. Please provide quotes from papers that establish these wild claims. You might also see the old discussion at Moorjani, Thangaraj et al. (2013), Genetic evidence for recent population mixture in India, where we concluded that the ANI DNA (male DNA) entered India in 2,200 BC. - Kautilya3 (talk) 23:25, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

That timeframe is the mixture of ANI's and ASI's. It has nothing to do with Aryan migration. That is your WP:OR.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 00:01, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

That is a different matter. But I would like to see where the sources say populations have been in India for 50,000 years. - Kautilya3 (talk) 00:11, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

"both Indian ancestry components are older than the purported Indo-Aryan invasion 3,500 YBP".VictoriaGrayson^Talk 00:37, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

You interpret "ancestry component" as "population?" How? - Kautilya3 (talk) 00:44, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

How not? Those papers do say that those two components enterd India 50,000 years ago; some of the papers also mention that this predates the Indo-Aryan migrations. Definitely relevant, since it raises questions about the Indo-Aryan migrations. Fair point for those who oppose the IAmt.

If you seriously want me to add quotes, that will take time; but do take a look at Wikipedia:Genetic research on the origins of India's population. Believe me: I went through a lot of those sources, as you can see at that page. One example: "Modeling of the observed haplotype diversities suggests that both Indian ancestry components are older than the purported Indo-Aryan invasion 3,500 YBP." Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:10, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

The "ancestry components" are haplotypes and other kinds of genetic markers. Populations have such components. Populations are not themselves "components." If a genetic haplotype is 50,000 years old, it doesn't imply that the populations carrying those haplotypes were in India 50,000 years ago. (They might be or might not be. That is a separate question. But both of you are interpreting genetic components themselves as populations. That doesn't fly.) - Kautilya3 (talk) 07:58, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: I thought you were wrong, and went through this 'note-page' to find a line which says that those two groups entered India 50,000 years ago. I didn't find such a line; I just found that both groups are related to the humans who left Africa 65,000 years ago, and that those groups split 50,000 years ago. So far, I didn't find a line which says that the split happened in India. But I do remember that one paper suggested that the Indo-Aryan languages were introduced by the ANI. I'll dig into this; you definitely have got a good point.
Meanwhile, I suggest changing "make clear that India was peopled by two distinct groups ca. 50,000 years ago" into "make clear that India was peopled by two distinct groups which split ca. 50,000 years ago". Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:00, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

From the Wiki-article:

"Research by Reich et al. indicates that there has been a low influx of female genetic material since 50,000 years ago, but a "male gene flow from groups with more ANI relatedness into ones with less."(ref name="ReichThangaraj2009"/)(note|Reich et al.: "The stronger gradient in males, replicating previous reports, could reflect either male gene flow from groups with more ANI relatedness into ones with less, or female gene flow in the reverse direction. However, extensive female gene flow in India would be expected to homogenize ANI ancestry on the autosomes just as in mtDNA, which we do not observe. Supporting the view of little female ANI ancestry in India, Kivisild et al. reported that mtDNA ‘haplogroup U’ splits into two deep clades. ‘U2i’ accounts for 77% of copies in India but ~0% in Europe, and ‘U2e’ accounts for 0% of all copies in India but ~10% in Europe. The split is ~50,000 years old, indicating low female gene flow between Europe and India since that time." (ref name="ReichThangaraj2009" /)"

So, what Reich et al. seem to be implying, is that the ASi came to India very early, and that this population was gradually supplemented with ANI-people, that is, with ANI-males. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:05, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

In the section "Pre-Indo-Aryan origins" we'll have to split Kivisild, Sharma and Sahoo on the one hand, and Metspalu on the other. Metspalu (2011) writes (emphasis mine):

"This intricacy cannot be readily explained by the putative recent influx of Indo-Aryans alone but suggests multiple gene flows to the South Asian gene pool, both from the west and east, over a much longer time span." (p.741)

I'll have to check what exactly Metspalu writes, when we state "According to Kivisild and Metspalu, these groups predate the Indo-Aryan migration." Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:41, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, if you recall, things were pretty unclear until the Moorjani 2013 paper. In that paper, they argued that there was no ANI-ASI admixture before 4,200 BP. That is when you said that these ANI were the Vedic people. The paper doesn't say it outright. But it is pretty clear. If the ANI males came earlier, they would have died out without admixture. Notwithstanding the irrationality of such a scenario, if they died out, they don't matter to us. They are gone. So 4,200 BP is when the ANI males that matter came to India. - Kautilya3 (talk) 14:38, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

• ANI's are not Vedic people. This is just pure OR.
• The Vedas were written in India. Even Michael Witzel says so.
• ANI includes both men and women.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 14:44, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Reich (2009): "The split is ~50,000 years old, indicating low female gene flow between Europe and India since that time." Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:01, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Moorjani and the historians

Moorjani (2013) has 58 citations so far at Google scholar. Scrolling through the list now. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:23, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

• Dan Dediu, An Introduction to Genetics for Language Scientists (book)
• Unity in diversity: an overview of the genomic anthropology of India
• The Spatial Mixing of Genomes in Secondary Contact Zones
• ! Human evolution: Ancient DNA steps into the language debate (Nature)(Article on European migrations)
• A Spatial Framework for Understanding Population Structure and Admixture.
• Insiders and Outsiders: Local Ethnic Politics and Public Goods Provision
• ! GaneshPrasad et al. (2015), Genome-wide signatures of male-mediated migration shaping the Indian gene pool (Nature): "We suggest that ancient male-mediated migratory events and settlement in various regional niches led to the present day scenario and peopling of India."
• Serfing the social web: The biological evolution of minority rule
• ! Basu et al. (2016), Genomic reconstruction of the history of extant populations of India reveals five distinct ancestral components and a complex structure: "four major ancestries in mainland India. This contrasts with an earlier inference of two ancestries based on limited population sampling."
• ? Long-Distance Dispersal Shaped Patterns of Human Genetic Diversity in Eurasia
• Insights into the Genetic Structure and Diversity of 38 South Asian Indians from Deep Whole-Genome Sequencing

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:39, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Klyosov & Rozhanskii (2012)

@David Eppstein: this edit removed

"while others have argued for the possibility of genetic influx by Aryan migrations."

"Klyosov and Rozhanskii argue that the R1a1 haplotype, which is typical for Indo-Europeans, arose in Central Asia around 20,000 years before present, and spread westwards to Europe and South Asia. They argue that the haplotype entered India two times, being present already at 12,000 years before present. According to Klyosov and Rozhanskii, it entered the Russian Plain around 4800–4600 years before present, and from there "migrated (or moved as military expeditions) to the south (Anatolia, Mitanni and the Arabian Peninsula), east (South Ural and then North India), and south-east (the Iranian Plateau) as the historic legendary Aryans.""

References

• Klyosov, Anatole A.; Rozhanskii, Igor L. (2012), "Haplogroup R1a as the Proto Indo-Europeans and the Legendary Aryans as Witnessed by the DNA of Their Current Descendants", Advances in Anthropology, 2 (1): 1–13, doi:10.4236/aa.2012.21001{{citation}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)

It was removed because "remove claims sourced to unreliable Scientific Research Publishing predatory journal", but it seems highly relevant in the light of Moorjani (2013). Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:01, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Okay, never mind:

The Into Africa hypothesis

The Into Africa hypothesis has been proposed by Anatole Klyosov, a chemist from Russia who is now living in America. He writes prolifically on the subject of what he calls “DNA genealogy”. His research is almost all self-published. Klyosov is the editor of Advances in Anthropology published by the questionable open access publisher Scientific Research Publishing. None of the members of the journal's editorial board has a background in population genetics. Klyosov has published two articles in this journal (2012 and 2014) supposedly refuting the Out of Africa hypothesis and proposing his alternative Into Africa theory. But these papers focus on a questionable analysis of Y-DNA and mtDNA which are of limited value for inferences about human origins. (Y-DNA and mtDNA tests can, however, be used legitimately for genealogical purposes.)

In January 2015, a group of leading Russian academics published a letter in the popular science magazine Troitskii Variant denouncing Anatole Klyosov’s “DNA demagoguery”. [1]

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:13, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Y chromosome is paternal ancestry, not maternal

JJ, the subject of Sahoo 2006 is Y chromosome paternal data, not maternal. The whole point is:

"The Y-chromosomal data consistently suggest a largely South Asian origin for Indian caste communities and therefore argue against any major influx, from regions north and west of India, of people associated either with the development of agriculture or the spread of the Indo-Aryan language family."-A prehistory of Indian Y chromosomes: Evaluating demic diffusion scenarios

VictoriaGrayson^Talk 20:21, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Moorjani (2013): three scenarios

Moorjani (2013) describes three scenarios regarding the migrations that brought together the two groups. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:26, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Moorjani (2013) p.422-423:

• "migrations that occurred prior to the development of agriculture [8,000–9,000 years before present (BP)]. Evidence for this comes from mitochondrial DNA studies, which have shown that the mitochondrial haplogroups (hg U2, U7, and W) that are most closely shared between Indians and West Eurasians diverged about 30,000–40,000 years BP."
• "Western Asian peoples migrated to India along with the spread of agriculture [...] Any such agriculturerelated migrations would probably have begun at least 8,000–9,000 years BP (based on the dates for Mehrgarh) and may have continued into the period of the Indus civilization that began around 4,600 years BP and depended upon West Asian crops."
• "migrations from Western or Central Asia from 3,000 to 4,000 years BP, a time during which it is likely that Indo-European languages began to be spoken in the subcontinent. A difficulty with this theory, however, is that by this time India was a densely populated region with widespread agriculture, so the number of migrants of West Eurasian ancestry must have been extraordinarily large to explain the fact that today about half the ancestry in India derives from the ANI."

Are there any more recent publication son this question? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:44, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, this is not the correct interpretation. She mentions these three scenarios as possibilities at the outset. But her results conclusively support the Vedic scenario (the last one). She doesn't beat around the bush:

"Our analysis provides evidence for major mixture between populations with very different ancestries in India ~1,900-4,200 years ago, well after the establishment of agriculture. We have further shown that groups with unmixed ANI and ASI ancestry were plausibly living in India until this time."

"The archaeological and historical correlates of the time of mixture are important and interesting. The period of around 1,900-4,200 years ago was a time of major change in the subcontinent, characterized by the deurbanization of the Indus valley civilization[40], repopulation of the Gangetic plateau[41], dramatic shifts in burial practices[42], and likely appearance of Indo-European languages and Vedic religion in India[16;17]."

She is saying that her results support all the stuff we know from history. I don't think Lalji Singh has given any more newspaper interviews since 2013.

From what I can see, what she did differently from the earlier research is that she separated caste groups. So admixtures that looked "complex" in the previous analyses became "simple" when she limited them to caste groups. Different caste groups had different admixture dates. This is phenomenal! Knowing India well, and unburdened by Indigenous Aryanist dogmas, she just knew the right thing to do. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:52, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Ehm... she writes: "We have further shown that groups with unmixed ANI and ASI ancestry were plausibly living in India until this time." Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 21:37, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

It seems that she doesn't rule out either of two possibilities: both ancestral groups were there before the mixture, and the mixture is related to the dramatic changes in northern India, including the appearance of the Vedic people. Which, then, may have been relatively small groups - but with a major impact on the languages! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 21:40, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Moorjani (2013)(doctoral thesis) p.134:

"Historical and archaeological records have suggested that this was a period of major changes in the subcontinent characterized by the downfall of the Indus civilization and the likely appearance of Indo-European languages in India. However, I caution that population mixture dates should not be interpreted as migration dates without supporting evidence from other disciplines such as linguistics and archaeology. The alternate hypothesis that the ANI and ASI populations coexisted in India long before mixing is also entirely consistent with the results of this study. One of the most important questions in Indian history is to understand the nature of events that led to the spread of Indo-European languages and Vedic culture to India, and this study has provided new insights for understanding this formative period of Indian history."

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 21:47, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

I am not taking "we have further shown" literally because I don't see where she has shown anything about the coexistence. She is merely saying that it is plausible. On the other hand, I am taking seriously the idea that there is little female ANI DNA in India. May be this is not so certain in the Genetics community. Or, may be there is enough female ANI DNA to have sustained small ANI populations for a certain amount of time. In such a case, a Geneticist wouldn't want to speculate about the possibility or non-possibility of isolated ANI populations and leave it to the historians to figure it out. I think that is basically what she is doing. She seems to have been in touch with Michael Witzel, and Witzel possibly believes that the Rigvedic Aryans were in Helmand (which I think is quite likely). If that is the case, we have the possibility of an isolated ANI population there. But the Rigvedic people had plenty of dāsis (ANI or ASI?), and Witzel has his work cut out for him. - Kautilya3 (talk) 22:24, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Joshua Jonathan and Kautilya, Sorry for intruding into your discussion. Kautilya, kindly note mtDNA is never inherited thru the male line. If Rgvedic males had dasis, it would not matter, since the dasis would not inherit mtDNA from the males anyways; coz mitochondria are inherited only in the maternal ova and not in sperm. Which means the female ANI are what it is. The general social perception that only males migrated not females may undergo change in future. Please think over, why would males migrate leaving behind their families (females). Anything is possible. --Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 23:52, 4 March 2016 (UTC)Mayasutra

Forgive my ignorance, but what's dasis? And yes, it is what Moorjani clearly states:

"We have further shown that groups with unmixed ANI and ASI ancestry were plausibly living in India until this time." (p.429)

She also writes, regarding the third scenario:

"By this time India was a densely populated region with widespread agriculture, so the number of migrants of West Eurasian ancestry must have been extraordinarily large to explain the fact that today about half the ancestry in India derives from the ANI." (p.422-423)

But she also writes:

"Further evidence for multiple waves of admixture in the history of many traditionally middle- and upper-caste groups (as well as Indo-European and northern groups) comes from the more recent admixture dates we observe in these groups (Table 1) and the fact that a sum of two exponential functions often produces a better fit to the decay of admixture LD than does a single exponential (as noted above for some northern groups; Appendix B). Evidence for multiple components of West Eurasian-related ancestry in northern Indian populations has also been reported by Metspalu et al. based on clustering analysis." (p.429)

"...at least some of the history of population mixture in India is related to the spread of languages in the subcontinent. One possible explanation for the generally younger dates in northern Indians is that after an original mixture event of ANI and ASI that contributed to all present-day Indians, some northern groups received additional gene flow from groups with high proportions of West Eurasian ancestry, bringing down their average mixture date." (p.429-430)

Regarding "enough female ANI DNA to have sustained small ANI populations": I think it's not about "enough female ANI DNA," but about 'enough ASI female DNA' - that is, ASI women who married ANI man. Those 'isolated ANI men' didn't leave behind their spouses; they had no spouses!
And yes, it looks like we'll have to wait for "the historians to figure it out." Which means we're riding at the top of the wave in our coverage! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:20, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi JJ, dāsa were the people that the Rigvedic people fought (and presumably killed), and the dāsi were their women that the Rigvedic people enslaved (and used as "concubines" according to Dev Raj Chanana). Witzel had always maintained that the dasa were local inhabitants but Parpola thinks they were proto-Sakas. Moorjani's results now have a bearing on all these issues. If we go by the predominant theory, it seems that admixture between the Vedic people and the local inhabitants was happening just as Rigveda was being composed.

References

- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:08, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Female DNA (Arbitrary section break)

@Mayasutra: ("No illusion?" - nice) I agree entirely. The fact that there is no significant female ANI DNA in India limits the possibilities drastically. So, the vague suggestion of Moorjani that the ANI people were living in India without admixture before 2,200 BC is not plausible in my view. (One way it could happen for instance, is that the ANI people suddenly stopped mating with their own women, and purely used the ASI women. All such possibilities are highly irrational. And, it doesn't do any good to the Indigenous Aryanists because it all happened before the Rigveda.)- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:13, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

JJ and Kautilya, me too cannot believe 2200 BC supposition. However, please consider, perhaps female ANI DNA are recent entrants and hence isolated ANI may be possible (?) The parsis migrated with females. If they cud make it, why not others. But we hit a block if the events were not recorded historically. In the course of vast human migration history, these things are very tough calls without proper historical events to co-relate. Therefore as of now, perhaps it is better to wait for more samples, more papers. Though Moorjani's paper covers more than 6000 individuals; still it is not sufficient; considering there are indo-aryan speakers among tribal populations too; and not all have been sampled. JJ, in a war, even if all females became concubines of another tribe; still mt-DNA is passed on to her daughters. So, the presence of female ANI DNA is indeed challenging. Am not sure why only spouse. Would you leave your daughter behind? Somehow the idea of just a bunch of males migrating does not seem right. That too, in a supposed single-event. Layers of migration cud have happened. Somewhere, somehow, female ANI dna could have found a way into the subcontinent. Kautilya, I agree with your view. Hard to believe ANI people were living in India without admixture before 2,200 BC. Moorjani should have explained how that is possible. Unless she wants to say ANI lived in India without mating with ASI and should be considered native (because there is a political 'correctness' to say so!) --Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 11:00, 5 March 2016 (UTC)Mayasutra

Yes, if they left women behind, they would have left children behind behind too. But I don't think we should seriously entertain these possibilities. The more realistic scenario is that there was a large-scale enslavement of dasis and so their descendants now swamp the population and it is hard to detect female ANI DNA. - Kautilya3 (talk) 12:07, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Am not sure about "large-scale enslavement of dasis". Obviously female ANI dna cannot come from ASI females :) so the presence of female ANI dna means females too made their way into the subcontinent....Am not sure if it is possible to draw generalized conclusions on Rigvedic period at all. How do we know enslavement happened in Rigvedic period? On the contrary, the paper says there is no mention of class and caste system during rigvedic period (and seems to accept caste system happened when the dharmashastras were composed). Please see page 24:

"The bulk of the Rig Veda, the oldest texts composed in India, had no mention of the class or caste system, and indeed there is linguistic and philological evidence from the older part of the Rig Veda that there was acceptance of some of the pre-Indo-Aryan population as kings (or chieftains) and poets. The traditional four class (varna) system, made up of Brahmanas, Ksatriyas, Vaisyas and Sudras, was first mentioned in the appendix (book 10) and was merely described as a means of social organization. However, assigning caste (jati) related to an individuals traditional hereditary occupation appeared only some centuries later, such as in the law code of Manu (Manusmriti), which redefined the system by forbidding intermarriage between groups and preventing the movement of individuals across caste groups."

The paper does not say or suggest there is little female ANI DNA in India. It says unmixed ANI and ASI ancestry were plausibly living in India prior to 1900-4200 years ago. That obviously includes ANI females. So, obviously not possible to conclude there is little female ANI dna in India. The only thing I contest is presence in India -- The paper uses the word "plausibly living". How is it possible to conclude ANI were in India until that time but rather dramatically chose to mate with ASI 1,900-4,200 years ago? I think it is not possible to claim ANI were living in India until that time.--Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 13:58, 5 March 2016 (UTC)Mayasutra

@Mayasutra,

• the absence of female ANI dna is known from earlier papers. See footnote 35 in the article (Reich et al.).
• The Rigvedic dasis are well-known, but we don't have enough on them on Wikipedia yet. See Slavery and religion#Hindu society for a starter. So far, the consensus has been that a "small class of dasis" were enslaved, but the genetic data may change that in future.
• The four varnas came later, but the family books of Rigveda (Books 2-9) mention two varnas, arya and dasa. Scholars say that it was not a social division, but a tribal division.

I have been in the process of working all these ideas into our articles, but it is hard work because the current POV text in the articles is defended by a lot of people. - Kautilya3 (talk) 15:15, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Could you be kind enough to mention the page number of Reich footnote please. Yes, there has been slavery. But to date it to Rigveda is the problem. The Rigvedic society was not stratified. The paper resolves what some like Kosambi have been saying. That casteism., viz., feudal laws with occupation fixed by birth including untouchability / slavery, happened in the dharmashastras. I think the page on dharmashastras needs to be resolved. But there is a lot of POV pushing there. No point trying. Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 15:51, 5 March 2016 (UTC)Mayasutra

Sorry I meant the "footnote 35" of this article [2]. I think it is best to leave out the caste system/stratification while talking about slavery. The two are related but the relationship is quite complex. The Rigvedic society didn't have caste but it had slavery. And this slavery increased to enormous proportions by the time of Buddha, after which the wise men tried to put a lid on it, most of all Kautilya. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:24, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Just saw this, will need to check into the verses. Few years back, i remember having read verses on taking females as war spoils; as well as donating to brahmins who performed yagnas. As for female ANI, off hand i remember the Musahar population was shown to have female Indo-European haplogroups (mtDNA). Will get after weekend. Bye--Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 17:24, 5 March 2016 (UTC)Mayasutra

Sahoo 2006 clearly says the paternal male ancestry is native to South Asia, and "therefore argue against any major influx, from regions north and west of India, of people associated either with the development of agriculture or the spread of the Indo-Aryan language family.".VictoriaGrayson^Talk 20:35, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Sahoo's paper examined 936 samples from 32 tribal and 45 caste populations. India is home to more than a 1000 tribes and castes. Am not sure how it is possible to pronounce a verdict in such case. So also for Moorjani's paper. Maybe a good idea to wait for more research. In any case, the theory that ANI were "plausibly living" in India but rather dramatically chose to mate with ASI between 1,900-4,200 years ago needs better examination. ANI were "plausibly living" where in India? Can we have the regional geographical spread of ANI with frequency of occurrence prior to 4200 years ago? Kautilya, you are right, female ANI mt-dna found across europe or even the far-east / middle-east is hardly found in India. Within India, haplogroup-M and its daughters are most widespread among speakers across all linguistic families. More data is required for lineages of haplogroup-N -- HV, H, J, T, esp subclades of U. In such case, how Moorjani decides ANI (including females?) were "plausibly living" in India prior to 4,200 years ago?--Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 00:52, 6 March 2016 (UTC)Mayasutra

Why was this removed?

The following text was removed:

"A 2011 study published in the American Journal of Human Genetics indicates that Indian ancestral components are the result of a more complex demographic history than was previously thought. According to the researchers, South Asia harbours two major ancestral components. One which is more restricted to South Asia and the other component shared at comparable frequency and genetic diversity with the populations of Central Asia, West Asia and the Europe. However, rather than ruling out the possibility of Indo-Aryan migration, these findings suggest that the genetic affinities of both Indian ancestral components are the result of multiple gene flows over the course of thousands of years. "

References

It was simple and easier to understand. Main article in Genetics and archaeogenetics of South Asia has better detailed explanation regrading ANI and ASI under Autosomal DNA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pebble101 (talk • contribs) 09:31, 7 March 2016

Nevermind, I see that it's posted with other various studies. That's helpful.Pebble101 (talk) 08:46, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Sahoo 2006

Vic placed the following info, from Sahoo (2006), prominently in the first section on genetics:

"The Y-chromosomal (paternal) data consistently suggest an indigenous South Asian origin for Indian caste communities and therefore argue against any major influx, from regions north and west of India, of people associated either with the development of agriculture or the spread of the Indo-Aryan language family."

References

At least it should be attributed; next, it should be made clear that this is an isolated study, and that a series of recent studies clonclude that ANI c.q. northern Indians are related to Central Asians, and that those studies do make a connection with recent migrations. Otherwise, this is WP:UNDUE and misleading. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:10, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

This is a higher quality study than many of the others. The other studies are WP:UNDUE. Also, Sahoo 2006 does not mention anything about ANI. You are just cherrypicking what you want to put in the article.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 06:13, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

So, Sahoo should be left out, instead of giving him a prominent place? You're using your own logic against yourself, Vic. Why is it that you're so opposed against genetics? It's quite obvious that all those studies ask questions about the origins of the Indian populations, and that those studies touch directly on the Indo-Aryans. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:52, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm opposed since you are WP:CHERRYPICKING.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 07:01, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

So thinks Kautily3 - in the opposite direction. I've also moved Sahoo from notes into the main text, and clearly stated what Moorjani (2013) thinks. I'll also check Metspalu (2011) again. Nevertheless, several other studies quite clearly connect ANI/northern Indians to central Asians and linguistics; that has to be included too.

For me personally, I think that both stances are convincing: ANI-ancenstry in India pre-dating the Indo-Aryan migrations, and Indo-Aryan migrations which had a major linguistic and social impact on India. So, inconclusive. Maybe genetic research just isn't the magic wand; but then, the ASI/ANI admixture dating is fascinating.

It would be great if the Harappans could be genetically analysed. If they were ASI, that wouls argue for a major impact of the Indo-Eurpeans. If they are ANI, that would confirm Moorjari. We'll just have to wait, I guess, for the future to happen. All the best, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:08, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

They already DNA tested Hapappan skeletons. Results are coming this year.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 07:14, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Looking forward to it! I'l read sahoo (2006) too. How's the coffee? Or would you rather have a cup of tea? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:42, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

I found this when I was Googling for "Vasant Shinde" Rakhigarhi: The Dravidian Migration Theory Vindicated!. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:00, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

JJ, thanks for the paper. Am looking forward to more studies on dravidian speakers and elamite / west asian farming groups :)) As for the 4 skeletons of IVC, am not sure it would be enough. IVC was rather wide spread over a large geographical area; possibly involved all 3 major linguistic lines in phases (austroasiatic, dravidian, indo-european). People in Rakhigarhi of one phase may not exactly represent people in Pirak or Mohenjadaro in a different cultural phase. Additionally, it would be interesting to see if Sino-Tibetan language family was involved in some manner considering the Pashupati seal.--Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 08:33, 6 March 2016 (UTC)Mayasutra

JJ, Sahoo 2006 says the relatedness to Central Asians is explained "with diffusion of some Indian-specific lineages northward". So Indians migrated out of India.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 16:30, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Metspalu 2011 mentions this as one of several possibilities. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:44, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

This statement is mentioned in the abstract, but it isn't substantiated in the article. In general, this paper is making very grandiose claims with very little data, an example being "A pre-Neolithic chronology for the origins of Indian Y chromosomes is also supported by the lack of a clear delineation between DR [Dravidian] and IE [Indo-European] speakers," which is clearly contradicted by the later Reich Lab papers. This paper was written before the ANI and ASI strands were discovered. Consequently it is badly out of date in this fast moving field. At best it is contradicting the claims/suggestions of earlier papers. I don't think we need to pay any attention to this paper any more. - Kautilya3 (talk) 17:52, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Thats absurd. The article is filled with even older papers.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 18:00, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, they are all out of date. But the damage increases when the authors start making grandiose claims like this bunch of authors do. - Kautilya3 (talk) 18:25, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

For their work on India’s population history, Reich and his CCMB collaborators tracked hundreds of thousands of markers in all the DNA samples they studied, a level of detail several times greater than previous genetic studies of Indian populations. This allowed for a more fine-grained measurement of genetic differences and similarities between groups of people.

And this is also worth noting: The eminent historian of ancient India, Romila Thapar, when asked about the usefulness of population genetics research in arriving at histories, says, “The DNA results from various sources have been so confused and contradictory that it is difficult for me to accept what any of them say. None of them are social historians nor do they consult historians and sociologists before they make their categories, hence the confusion.” -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:39, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Kautilya3, read WP:VNT. You are not to judge what is grandiose and what is not.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 19:08, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, I'll check Reich (2009) again too. But so far, the picture is that ASI is the oldest pool, and that ANI came later - long before the Indo-Aryans; long before there even were Indo-Europeans. Nevertheless, this doesn't rule out Indo-Aryan migrations, which are clearly evidenced by the Indo-Aryan languages. 19:10, 6 March 2016 (UTC)Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk!

Sorry, JJ. The locations are not written into the genes. All location inferences have to be made historically and by making cross-correlations. The only cross-correlation they have found is given here: According to Metspalu, the population of the subcontinent was already large during the time in question, and it is hard to find a West Eurasian source large enough to contribute so much to the Indian genetic makeup. In addition, the West Eurasian component in Indians appears to come from a population that diverged genetically from people actually living in Eurasia, and this separation happened at least 12,500 years ago.

Look at the tenuous argument here. West Eurasia didn't have enough people to contribute Indian ANIs in sufficient numbers. Metspalu claims to know how many Indians lived in India in 2,200 BC, how many of them were ANIs but he says we don't know where they could have from. So, we are going to assume that they were in India during all this time! No wonder the historians are pooh-poohing their conclusions. - Kautilya3 (talk) 21:01, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

References

Off-topic
See WP:VNT.VictoriaGraysonTalk 21:28, 6 March 2016 (UTC) Oh, for heaven's sake! Read WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT. - Kautilya3 (talk) 21:39, 6 March 2016 (UTC) NPOV and WEIGHT are based on the sources, not your personal opinion that you think those sources are wrong.VictoriaGraysonTalk 21:42, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Genetic evidence of Indo-Aryan migration is evident through Y-DNA R1a-Z93. This clad was was found in Sintashta culture (see under genetic section) which is associated with Indo-Iranian culture. R1a-Z93 has high frequency in Indo-Gangtic plains, espically in Uttar Pradesh and Bihar in India which served as seat of Vedic civilization. It also has high frequency in Deccan, especially in Maharashtra and Karnataka (DR speaking state).

Here is the frequency map of R1a-Z93 - http://cdn.eupedia.com/images/content/Haplogroup-R1a-Z93-Asia.png and MtDNA associated with Indo-Aryan migration could be U2 which was also found in Sintashta culture and is also third most common mtdna in India after M and R.Mywikicommons (talk) 22:33, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

@Mywikicommons: Thanks for this. Unfortunately, Sahoo et al (2006) contest it. They say, the proposition that a high frequency of R1a in India is caused by admixture with populations of Central Asian origin is difficult to substantiate, as the proposed source region does not meet the expectation of containing high frequencies of the other components of haplogroup R, with no examples of R* and generally low incidence of R2, which, unlike J2, does not show evidence of a recent diffusion throughout India from the northwest.

They conclude, It is not necessary, based on the current evidence, to look beyond South Asia for the origins of the paternal heritage of the majority of Indians at the time of the onset of settled agriculture. The perennial concept of people, language, and agriculture arriving to India together through the northwest corridor does not hold up to close scrutiny.

So, evidently looking at single haplotype frequencies isn't conclusive. The Reich Lab results obtained by correlating the entire genome are much stronger. - Kautilya3 (talk) 23:15, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Metspalu et al (2011) state similar reservations, though with more sophisticated tools: We found no regional diversity differences associated with k5 at K = 8. Thus, regardless of where this component was from (the Caucasus, Near East, Indus Valley, or Central Asia), its spread to other regions must have occurred well before our detection limits at 12,500 years. Accordingly, the introduction of k5 to South Asia cannot be explained by recent gene flow, such as the hypothetical Indo-Aryan migration.

And Reich Lab backs them up: ...a recent study that searched for West Eurasian groups most closely related to the ANI ancestors of Indians failed to find any evidence for shared ancestry between the ANI and groups in West Eurasia within the past 12,500 years[3] (although it is possible that with further sampling and new methods such relatedness might be detected). An alternative possibility possibility that is also consistent with our data is that the ANI and ASI were both living in or near South Asia for a substantial period prior to their mixture. (Moorjani et al. 2013)

So, in the end, it seems that the geneticists don't know what happened between 12,5000 BP to 4,200 BP that caused the ANI genes to end up in India. - Kautilya3 (talk) 00:18, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Ehm... not between 12,5000 and 4,200 BP, but before 12,5000 BP. In between the two groups were living separate lives. See next section, on Reich (2009). Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:26, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't understand that comment.

The established facts are that the ANI separated from the West Eurasians (whoever they are) in 12,500 BP, and they started mixing with the ASI in 4,200 BP. The rest is all speculation and ongoing research. - Kautilya3 (talk) 10:28, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Where are the ANI-loans?

Hmmm... Yesterday I posted a thread - or so I think - about ANI-loans, but it's not here. Anyway: I'll repeat it: if ANI and ASI were separate groups for thousands of years, then surely they had different languages, right? The Rig-Veda contains Dravidian (ASI) loans. Where are the ANI-loans?!? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:02, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Reich et al. (2009)

There are some interesting additional comments to Reich et al. (2009):

• The Economic Times, Aryan-Dravidian divide a myth: Study, 25 september 2009 - Thangarajan:

"The initial settlement took place 65,000 years ago in the Andamans and in ancient south India around the same time, which led to population growth in this part, said Thangarajan. He added, ``At a later stage, 40,000 years ago, the ancient north Indians emerged which in turn led to rise in numbers here. But at some point of time, the ancient north and the ancient south mixed, giving birth to a different set of population. And that is the population which exists now and there is a genetic relationship between the population within India."

• The Times of India, Aryan-Dravidian divide a myth: Study, 25 september 2009 -

"The researchers, who are now keen on exploring whether Eurasians descended from ANI, find in their study that ANIs are related to western Eurasians, while the ASIs do not share any similarity with any other population across the world. However, researchers said there was no scientific proof of whether Indians went to Europe first or the other way round."

• Razib Khan, The politics of genetic history in India, Science Blogs, 24 september 2009

"Today many Indians espouse an Out of India theory. I don’t really agree with either position. The Out of India theory is almost certainly just plain wrong. The Aryan Invasion Theory is a caricatured fact (in contrast to a stylized fact). But first let me quote something from the paper itself:

Two features of the inferred history are of special interest. First, the ANI and CEU form a clade, and further analysis shows that the Adygei, a Caucasian group, are an outgroup…Many Indian and European groups speak Indo-European languages, whereas the Adygei speak a Northwest Caucasian language. It is tempting to assume that the population ancestral to ANI and CEU spoke ‘Proto-Indo-European’, which has been reconstructed as ancestral to both Sanskrit and European languages, although we cannot be certain without a date for ANI-ASI mixture.

This is from the paper that these authors are listed on, but probably written by David Reich. They seem to be going in opposite directions here. I actually think that this section would best be left to the supplements, and other sections of this paper emphasize the likely complexity of the ANI-ASI mixture process. But in the quotes in the media above the other authors seem to be leading you to totally different conclusions from this, instead of leaning toward ANI being Proto-Indo-European, they deny that it is. Instead of demurring on a specific date, they clearly believe that ANI-ASI admixture predates the arrival of Aryans and Dravidians. The second suggests that the authors don’t believe in Out of India, look again at this passage: “Kumarasamy Thangarajan said there was no truth to the Aryan-Dravidian theory as they came hundreds or thousands of years after the ancestral north and south Indians had settled in India.”

• Dieneke's blogspot, 560K SNP study reveals dual rigin of Indian populations (Reich et al. 2009 -

" the discovery of a strong relationship of ANI with a West Eurasian population may help us pinpoint the geographical origin of ANI outside India."

• Basu et al. (2016) -

"The hypothesis that the root of ANI is in Central Asia is further bolstered" (p.1597)

Caucasus hunter-gatherers are a candidate for the origins of the ANI. See Jones et al. (2015) Upper Palaeolithic genomes reveal deep roots of modern Eurasians], though they speculate about the Indo-Aryans being the ancestors of ANI... Anyway, I'm thinking about a new subsection, "Origins of ANI," also in light of Metspalu et al. (2011), on the ASI being older. Thangarajan's comment has to be added anyway. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:26, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

NB: the comments at "Dieneke's bloigspot" are realli interesting to read: "If ANI diverged from West Eurasians 40,000 years ago, which is similar to the West-East Eurasian split, then why are ANI 10 times closer to West Eurasians? The obvious answer to this question is that ANI did not split from West Eurasians 40,000 years ago, but rather about 4,000 years ago, and represent Neolithic, Indo-Aryan, and later movements of Caucasoids from Central Asia and the Near East into Asia." Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:37, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

SRINATH PERUR, The origins of Indians. What our genes are telling us., Fountain Ink - Thangaraj:

"In addition, the West Eurasian component in Indians appears to come from a population that diverged genetically from people actually living in Eurasia, and this separation happened at least 12,500 years ago. K. Thangaraj believes it was much longer ago, and that the ANI came to India in a second wave of migration that happened perhaps 40,000 years ago."

Thanks Vic. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:02, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Yup, believes is the key word here. - Kautilya3 (talk) 10:16, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Joshua Jonathan, I think you are on the right track.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 14:20, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

This "belief" from Thangaraj certainly has to be added. However, I also just noticed that Metspalu et al. (2011) write "modeling of the observed haplotype diversity suggests that both Indian ancestry components are older thatn the purported Indo-Aryan invasions 3,500 YBP." (p.731) (emphasis mine). And Morrjani et al. (2013) write:

"It is also important to emphasize what our study has not shown. Although we have documented evidence for mixture in India between about 1,900 and 4,200 years BP, this does not imply migration from West Eurasia into India during this time. On the contrary, a recent study that searched for West Eurasian groups most closely related to the ANI ancestors of Indians failed to find any evidence for shared ancestry between the ANI and groups in West Eurasia within the past 12,500 years3 (although it is possible that with further sampling and new methods such relatedness might be detected)." (p.430) (emphasis mine)

The "recent study" is actually from 1999: Kivisild et al. (1999) Deep common ancestry of Indian and western-Eurasian mitochhondrial DNA lineages. The statements of these two publications on the 12,500 years are not as solid as they seemed to be.

Metspalu et al. (2011) further write;

"any nonmarginal migration from Central Asia to South Asia should have also introduced readily apparent signals of East Asian ancestry into India (see Figure 2B). Because this ancestry component is absent from the region, we have to conclude that if such a dispersal event nevertheless took place, it occurred before the East Asian ancestry component reached Central Asia. The demographic history of Central Asia is, however, complex, and although it has been shown that demic diffusion coupled with influx of Turkic speakers during historical times has shaped the genetic makeup of Uzbeks75 (see also the double share of k7 yellow component in Uzbeks as compared to Turkmens and Tajiks in Figure 2B), it is not clear what was the extent of East Asian ancestry in Central Asian populations prior to these events." (p.739)

I guess this refers to the ANE ("Ancient North Eurasian", see Yamna culture and Jones et al. (2015), ''Upper Palaeolithic genomes reveal deep roots of modern Eurasians, p.3. Good argument! Nevertheless, Jones et al. (2015) also suggest that the CHG (Caucasus Hunter Gatherer) genes may have been carried into India by the Indo-Eureopeans, though they also don't exclude the possibility that it was brought there earlier, by example by farming people (p.5). So, as I said at the thread about the lost ANI-loans: no settled conclusions yet. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:03, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Caucasus hunter-gatherers

Another interesting article: Eppie R. Jones et al. (2015), Upper Palaeolithic genomes reveal deep roots of modern Eurasians, Nature Communications 6, Article number: 8912, doi:10.1038/ncomms9912, 2015:

"Caucasus hunter-gatherers (CHG) belong to a distinct ancient clade that split from western hunter-gatherers ~45 kya, shortly after the expansion of anatomically modern humans into Europe and from the ancestors of Neolithic farmers ~25 kya, around the Last Glacial Maximum. CHG genomes significantly contributed to the Yamnaya steppe herders who migrated into Europe ~3,000 BC, supporting a formative Caucasus influence on this important Early Bronze age culture. CHG left their imprint on modern populations from the Caucasus and also central and south Asia possibly marking the arrival of Indo-Aryan languages."

If this the source of the ANI, then 40,000 years ago is too early. And 25,000 years ago means the Ice Age. I think that the scientists are not finished yet... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:25, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Here's another interesting post, at Dienekes's blogspot: mtDNA from 55 hunter-gatherers across 35,000 years in Europe. It says that the early Indians and the Eurasians split ca. 55,000 years ago, if I understand it correctly. That's about the date for the split between ANI and ASI. If the Eurasian component in ANI is Caucasus Hunter Gatherers, which split-off circa 25,000 years ago, then a connection between ANI and Indo-Europeans does seem to be likely. Also because, as I mentioned elsewhere: where are the ANI-loans? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:32, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Scenarios

I'm still pondering over the ANI-source. Obviously, the ANI-loans are the Dravidian loans. Which would mean that the people who the Indo-Aryans met were also Eurasians, but with another language. But then, why do (most) ASI's also speak Dravidian?
Because Dravidian spread with the mixing of ANI and ASI which started after 2,200 BCE. This is the time when the big drought in northern India set, which initially stimulatd the growth of the harappan cities. An additional argument for this is that proto-Dravidian split-up very recently, at circa 500 BCE. The Dravidian languages also says that proto-Dravidian may have been influenced by Uralic languages, that is, east Asian. Might make sense, if the Dravidians were Eurasians. I also remember, in the context of the Naga people, a comment about a local southern population who shifted to the Tamil language.
Sanskritiation seems to have started with the establsihment of the Kuru Kingdom, after ca. 1,200 BCE. This would imply that, while 'Dravidisation' and the admixture of ANI and ASI were still going on, a new wave of cultural and language shift was setting in quite some time after the onset of the ANI-ASI admixture, and after the arrival of the Indo-Europeans in northern India. This would explain the requirement of a relatively large amount of ANI c.q. Eurasian genes (the Harappan people?) which arrived before the Indo-Europeans, and the subsequent "Aryanisation" of a people which were already "Dravidinized." How about it? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:24, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

NB: also have a look at this chart. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:29, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Apparently I'm not the only one whose brain came up with this idea. See Razib Khan (August 8, 2013), Indo-Aryans, Dravidians, and waves of admixture (migration?) (emphasis mine):

"A plausible framework then is that expansion of institutional complexity resulted in an expansion of the agriculture complex ~3,000 B.C., and subsequent admixture with the indigenous hunter-gatherer substrate to the east and south during this period. One of the components that Zack Ajmal finds through ADMIXTURE analysis in South Asia, with higher fractions in higher castes even in non-Brahmins in South India, he terms “Baloch,” because it is modal in that population. This fraction is also high in the Dravidian speaking Brahui people, who coexist with the Baloch. It seems plausible to me that this widespread Baloch fraction is reflective of the initial ANI-ASI admixture event. In contrast, the Baloch and Brahui have very little of the “NE Euro” fraction, which is found at low frequencies in Indo-European speakers, and especially higher castes east and south of Punjab, as well as South Indian Brahmins. I believe that this component is correlated with the second, smaller wave of admixture, which brought the Indo-European speaking Indo-Aryans to much of the subcontinent. The Dasas described in the Vedas are not ASI, but hybrid populations. The collapse of the Indus Valley civilization was an explosive event for the rest of the subcontinent, as Moorjani et al. report that all indigenous Indian populations have ANI-ASI admixture (with the exceptions of Tibeto-Burman groups)."

Remember that north India shows more complex admixture, with multiple waves of admixture. While the south shows simpler admixture, which ended earlier. With other words: first came the Dravidians, then the Indo-Europeans. I place my bets on the Harappans being Eurasian, and not ASI. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:19, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

JJ you are on the right track.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 15:33, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: maybe not so; maybe more like the Harappans/Dravidians were farmers, whereas the ASI were hunter-gatherers. So they both occupied their own spaces, and had no need for killing each other. When the Harappan cities grew, that is, the social system changed drastically, the interactions between Harappans/Dravidians/ANI and ASI changed. NB: there are still AvisaviAdivasi, right? The Indo-Europeans came later than 2,200 BCE. I also read that there is a substantial amount of ASI-loans in the Rig Veda, which indicates that the three groups interacted, and that the Indo-Europeans were not that superior et cetera. It was only still later, with the Kuru Kingdom and the development of yet another social system, that the Sanskritizatin of India started. Who knows, by the way, how much, or how little, the Kurus understood of the Rig Veda? Maybe it was already quite incomprehensible, and did the Kurus use elements of what was available to incorporate a new social structure. It's just that "it" may have been a rather complicated process, with multiple waves of admixture and language shift. Maybe, who knows.

This theory is still counter to the linguistic evidence. There is a strong correlation between ASI genes and Dravidian languages. If the Harappans were the Dravidian speakers and they stayed away from the ASI, how did the ASI end up speaking Dravidian languages? If there was a such strong cultural dissonance between the Harappans and the ASI that they never mated while living next to each other for thousands of years, then the same dissonance should have also prohibited the language diffusion. The linguistic evidence shows the exact opposite. There are no observed facts that relate ANI with Dravidian languages. It is just pure speculation. - Kautilya3 (talk) 21:47, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, Asko Parpola thinks that the Harappans spoke Dravidian. And if the ANI's were not Dravidian, then what else were they? Dravidian loans, AA-loans, but where are the ANI-loans? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 22:04, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Noone knows what language Harappans spoke. There is no textbook that says Harappans spoke a certain language.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 22:09, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

There are no ANI-loans. The ANI spoke Sanskrit. Why would they need to borrow words from their own language? You have fallen under the influence of the Indigenous Aranists, JJ. A sad loss to Civilisation! - Kautilya3 (talk) 22:14, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Why would ANI speak Sanskrit? ANIs are not Aryans.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 22:15, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Hmmm, I love this! I guess we should spur Michael Witzel and Asko Parpola to give a "final word" on this! By the way, I'm a blue-eyed Dutchman with German ancestry, so I'm a barbarian anyway. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 22:18, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

They have to decipher the Harappan script.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 22:21, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, here is the trajectory of your fall.

• First, you start believing the propaganda that the ANI were in India for 12,000 years. You ignore my admonition that the genes don't tell you where people lived.
• Then you start looking around for all kinds of possible people that the ANI could have been. Again, you ignore my warning that there were no females among them. Without females, they would die out pretty fast.
• Then you start wondering what happened to their language. And you start constructing theories which are absurd in the face of facts.

Stop. Backtrack. The ANI were nowhere in India 12,500 years ago. They just came in 2,200 BC. They spoke Sanskrit. They mated with the ASI. They composed the Vedas, spread their language. It is obvious. No fancy theories necessary.

End of preaching. - Kautilya3 (talk) 22:36, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Joshua Jonathan.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 23:05, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Go on with the preaching! I love this; we're facing questions here, a puzzle with multiple elements. Ypu've got a good pooint about the females; yet, various authors suggest thatthe ANIs were there before 2,200 BCE. What's more, the Indo-Europeans came after 1,800 BCE. That leaves 400 years of admixture without the Indo-Europeans, and coincides with the height of the Harappan civilisation. Two waves of admixture and language shift, which partly overlapped. A crucial point is that we think of south India as Dravidian, as if they've always been so. Well, maybe not. Maybe since fairly recent times (augh, now I'm also in for a fight with the Dravidian nationalists. Great; the saffronites and the Dravidians can join their forces against me ;)). Note that Parpola thinks that the Harappans were Dravidian, and that Mikhail Andronov thinks that the Dravidian languages came as recently as the beginning of the 3rd millennium BCE, which is shirtly before the rise of the mature Harappan civilisation. Note also that all those genetics-authors agree that the origins and admixture of the Indian population is a complex puzzle, with multiple waves of admixture and (possibly) language change. So, nothing (okay, that's an exaggeration) wrong with proposing two waves of Eurasian admixture and language shift, which partly overlapped. It explains a lot. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:11, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Yet another thought: the Harappans were sea-farers, who traded with the Middle-East. Unlike the horse-riding barabarian Aryans and their descendants, they may have come to south India over sea, like the Greek spread throughout the Mediterranean and the Vikings spread over Europe, and like (do I dare say?) the British arrived in India. That may also be in line with the existence of AA-pockets in the inner-lands of India. How old are those Dravidian ports in the south? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:29, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

• The various authors suggesting that the ANI were in India before 2,200 BCE are precisely the Indigenous Aryanists (or their collaborators) that you are taking seriously. The CCMB scientists are provably indigenists. They have made statements in the Press and also journal papers. Their western collaborators are very likely accommodating their passions. As I have said repeatedly, genes don't tell you where people lived. So, I can a geneticist possibly know that the ANI were living in India before 2,200 BC? Where did they get the information from? Answer: they don't have any such information. It is just speculation and prejudice.
• The difference between 2,200 BCE and 1,800 BCE is within the error bar of the various estimates. The 2,200 BCE estimate is based on how many generations of admixture they notice in the genes. It is a statistical estimate (i.e., a ballpark figure), not to be taken literally. The 1,800 BCE date is based on the Mitanni references and the attempt to fit dates into the huge jigsaw puzzle of linguistic affinities between various groups. It is also an estimate, actually a whole collection of estimates made in solving the jigsaw puzzle. So none of these dates should be taken literally.
• The spread of agriculture from Mesopotamia to the Indus Valley, and possibly from there to South India, were instances of diffusion, i.e., small groups of people moving small distances, marrying across regions, trade links, borrowing technologies etc. There is no evidence that any of it involved huge migrations. There are plenty of unanswered questions about the Dravidian languages and their connections to Elamite languages. But we know too little to draw any conclusions.
• The large scale migrations that have occurred are the first Out-of-Africa migration 90,000-70,000 BP, and the second Out-of-Southeast-Asia migration around 60,000 BP after the Mount Toba volcanic explosion. See the Oppenheimer web movie. The movie shows a joining of two populations in India, one from the east and one from the west, around 55,000 BP. If the linguists can look that far back into history, they might be able to tell us interesting things about the languages spoken by these two groups. Migration into Eurasia occurred after this, which was apparently covered with ice until that point.
• Central Asia has always been populated by mobile, nomadic populations. Because of this mobility, it will be extremely difficult to track their movements from the genetic trail. The Central Asians traded with all the settled civilisations surrounding them, and this trade increased after the cities grew drew, due to the demand for minerals and, later, horses. But there is no evidence that the Central Asians attacked the surrounding civilisations took them over. Only after the civilisations declined did they move into the power vacuum. In India, that happened after the decline of the Indus Valley, i.e., around 2,200 BC. This is the simplest possible theory, and it should be preferred over all other wild speculations. - Kautilya3 (talk) 10:07, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Basically according to you Kautilya3, all differing view are "indigenists" (what is that?) (with an air of superiority and contempt). I would value all study irrespective of whether I like the researcher or not. --Ekvastra (talk) 10:29, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

The indigenists say that the Aryans were in India before 2,200 BCE. But thanks for all the information; it's nice to think about. This "second Out-of-Southeast-Asia migration around 60,000 BP" is interesting; it seems to be what I also read at other webpages, rejecting the socalled "Southern route." Thanks, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:11, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm watching the movie; it shows this "southern route" which seems to be rejected by others. Note that the movie is from 2003. Lots to learn... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:18, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

To the true indigenist, everything is indigenous to India, the Dravidians, the Indo-Europeans, the Harappans, agriculture, bronze, iron, horses, chariots and what have you. They have been there "from time immemorial." If the rest of the world has any of it, it is only because Indians expanded and spread it around.

According to the Oppenheimer movie, the second colonisation of India and the colonisation of Europe happened at roughly the same time, 55,000 BP. I don't see Dieneke contradicting this. This is when the "ASI" and the "ANI" diverged, but the branching apparently occurred in the Middle East. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 17:38, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

40,000 years BP

What happened 40,000 years BP is that India was repopulated following the Toba catastrophe. The Oppenheimer movie shows that populations moved in from both the east and west during the repopulation. It is tempting to think that these two populations were the ASI and the ANI, which is apparently what Thangaraj thinks (or "believes"). However, it seems to me that the Metspalu (2011) analysis itself disproves this. The ANI lived in the northwest subcontinent (mostly present-day Pakistan) along with their females (more on that later). So they should have had constant communications with the West Asians. It would be odd for their ancestral populations to disappear from West Asia. It is much more likely for Central Asian ancestral populations to disappear because of their constant mobility, which is the likely source of ANI. Basu (2016) support this view. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:50, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Small number of founders

@Kautilya3: regarding the "small number of founders, after second thought I do not agree with, but I can't disagree either. The text is unclear. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:58, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

What they mean by "groups" are caste groups. ANI and ASI are called "populations" by them. See Reich et al (2009), pp. 4-6. - Kautilya3 (talk) 11:32, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

But the "small number of founders" is also relevant for thise caste-groups, isn't it? Events may have been small-scale events, with the groups growing larger over time. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:05, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it is highly relevant to caste groups. But this article isn't about caste groups.

The relevant point for this article is, I think, that the "small number of founders" for endogamous groups gives rise to high genetic diversity due to "genetic drift". This is their explanation of why there is high diversity. This contrasts with the conclusions of Sahoo (2006), who believed that high diversity meant that they were ancestral to other populations outside India. - Kautilya3 (talk) 12:17, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

India and lactose tolerance

Rob Mitchum (2011), Lactose Tolerance in the Indian Dairyland:

"“We thought they would have a different mutation, because they’ve had cattle for a long time and they’ve been drinking milk,” Gallego Romero said. “But it was all European, except for a couple mutations that we haven’t proven yet do anything. We were very shocked by that, it was interesting.” The finding suggests that the most common lactose tolerance mutation made a two-way migration out of the Middle East less than 10,000 years ago. While the mutation spread across Europe, another explorer must have brought the mutation eastward to India – likely traveling along the coast of the Persian Gulf where other pockets of the same mutation have been found, Gallego Romero said."

Dravidian Harappans? Way younger than 40,000 years. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:54, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

See also lactose-intolerance with the Indo-Europeans: [3] [4] [5] [6]. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:48, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

The Indo-Europeans were lactose-intolerant. According to both Cavalli-Sforza and Renfrew, proto-Dravidian was brought to India by farmers from the Iranian part of the Fertile Crescent. See By Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza, Paolo Menozzi, Alberto Piazza (1994), The History and Geography of Human Genes, p.221-222. Two waves of admixture between 4,200-1,900 ago, partly happening simultaneously. First from the Dravidian ANI, who came from the west with the spread of farming, and then from the Indo-Europeans, who came from the steppes. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:35, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Sahoo et al. (2006)

Sahoo et al. (2006) responded to Cordaux et al. (2004), who argued for as spread of this "package" by demic (large-scale) diffusion of agriculture from north to south. Sahoo et al. write (emphasis mine):

• "The sharing of some Y-chromosomal haplogroups between Indian and Central Asian populations is most parsimoniously explained by a deep, common ancestry between the two regions, with diffusion of some Indian-specific lineages northward. The Y-chromosomal data consistently suggest a largely South Asian origin for Indian caste communities and therefore argue against any major influx, from regions north and west of India, of people associated either with the development of agriculture or the spread of the Indo-Aryan language family." (p.843
• "Cordaux et al. (19) defined, heuristically, a package of haplogroups (J2, R1a, R2, and L) to be associated with the migration of IE people and the introduction of the caste system to India, again from Central Asia" (p.843)
• "the proposition that a high frequency of R1a in India is caused by admixture with populations of Central Asian origin is difficult to substantiate, as the proposed source region does not meet the expectation of containing high frequencies of the other components of haplogroup R" (p.845)
• "if the source of R1a variation in India comes from Central Asia, as claimed by Wells et al. (18) and Cordaux et al. (19), then, under a recent gene flow scenario, one would expect to find the other Central Asian-derived NRY haplogroups (C3, DE, J*, I, G, N, O) in Northwest India at similarly elevated frequencies, but that is not the case." (p.845)
• "the high incidence of R1* and R1a throughout Central Asian and East European populations (without R2 and R* in most cases) is more parsimoniously explained by gene flow in the opposite direction" (p.845-846)

Their conclusions hang on the fourth quote: "if ... then." Unfortunately for them, this is what Underhill (2014) writes:

• "we find a compelling case for the Middle East, possibly near present-day Iran, as the geographic origin of hg R1a."
• "the earliest R1a lineages (genotyped at just SRY10381.2) found thus far in European ancient DNA date to 4600 years before present (YBP), a time corresponding to the Corded Ware Culture,53 whereas three DNA sample extracts from the earlier Neolithic Linear Pottery Culture (7500–6500 YBP) period were reported as G2a-P15 and F-M89(xP-M45) lineages.54 This raises the possibility of a wide and rapid spread of R1a-Z282-related lineages being associated with prevalent Copper and Early Bronze Age societies that ranged from the Rhine River in the west to the Volga River in the east55 including the Bronze Age Proto-Slavic culture that arose in Central Europe near the Vistula River.56 It may have been in this cultural context that hg R1a-Z282 diversified in Central and Eastern Europe. The corresponding diversification in the Middle East and South Asia is more obscure. However, early urbanization within the Indus Valley also occurred at this time57 and the geographic distribution of R1a-M780 (Figure 3d) may reflect this."
• "we estimate the bifurcation of R1 into R1a and R1b to have occurred ~25 100 ago (95% CI: 21 300–29 000). Using the 8 R1a lineages, with an average length of 48 SNPs accumulated since the common ancestor, we estimate the splintering of R1a-M417 to have occurred rather recently, ~5800 years ago (95% CI: 4800–6800). The slowest mutation rate estimate would inflate these time estimates by one-third, and the fastest would deflate them by 17%."
• "Our phylogeographic data lead us to conclude that the initial episodes of R1a-M420 diversification occurred in the vicinity of Iran and Eastern Turkey, and we estimate that diversification downstream of M417/Page7 occurred ~5800 years ago. This suggests the possibility that R1a lineages accompanied demic expansions initiated during the Copper, Bronze, and Iron ages, partially replacing previous Y-chromosome strata, an interpretation consistent with albeit limited ancient DNA evidence."

So, a better line would be: "In response to Cordaux et al. (2004), Sahoo et al. (2006) suggest, based on the spread of various haplogroups in India, including R1a, that those haplogroups originated in India. According to Sahoo et al. (2006), this spread "argue[s] against any major influx, from regions north and west of India, of people associated either with the development of agriculture or the spread of the Indo-Aryan language family." (Sahoo p.843).

In addition: Palanichamy et al. (2015), West Eurasian mtDNA lineages in India: an insight into the spread of the Dravidian language and the origins of the caste system:

"There is no indication from the previous mtDNA studies that west Eurasian-specific subclades have evolved within India and played a role in the spread of languages and the origins of the caste system. To address these issues, we have screened 14,198 individuals (4208 from this study) and analyzed 112 mitogenomes (41 new sequences) to trace west Eurasian maternal ancestry. This has led to the identification of two autochthonous subhaplogroups—HV14a1 and U1a1a4, which are likely to have originated in the Dravidian-speaking populations approximately 10.5–17.9 thousand years ago (kya). The carriers of these maternal lineages might have settled in South India during the time of the spread of the Dravidian language. In addition to this, we have identified several subsets of autochthonous U7 lineages, including U7a1, U7a2b, U7a3, U7a6, U7a7, and U7c, which seem to have originated particularly in the higher-ranked caste populations in relatively recent times (2.6–8.0 kya with an average of 5.7 kya). These lineages have provided crucial clues to the differentiation of the caste system that has occurred during the recent past and possibly, this might have been influenced by the Indo-Aryan migration. The remaining west Eurasian lineages observed in the higher-ranked caste groups, like the Brahmins, were found to cluster with populations who possibly arrived from west Asia during more recent times."

Some other related articles:

• forwhattheywereweare.blogspot Finally some improved knowledge of haplogroup R1a1 (Y-DNA)
• Dienekes' blogspot Major new article on the deep origins of Y-haplogroup R1a (Underhill et al. 2014)
• Underhill et al. (2010), Separating the post-Glacial coancestry of European and Asian Y chromosomes within haplogroup R1a, European Journal of Human Genetics
• Bellwood & Oxenham The Expansions of Farming Societies and the Role of the Neolithic Demographic Transition - how do you grow a large ANI-population?:

"The hypothesis of the Neolithic demographic transition (NDT) postulates that sharp increases in birthrates occurred as populations in different parts of the world adopted sedentary lifestyles and food storage, reduced their birth intervals, and came to depend increasingly on food production as opposed to foraging. For a period after these regional transitions to food production occurred, birth rates and absolute population numbers increased dramatically at least in those areas (Europe, Middle East, North Africa, North America, Southeast Asia) so far subjected to cemetery analysis."

• ArunKUmar et al. (2012), Population Differentiation of Southern Indian Male Lineages Correlates with Agricultural Expansions Predating the Caste System:

"the overall Y-chromosomal patterns, the time depth of population diversifications and the period of differentiation were best explained by the emergence of agricultural technology in South Asia."

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:12, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Metspalu (2011)'s 'ANI before 12,500 years ago'

I've checked Metspalu 2011 again.This is what they say, regarding the 12,500 years (emphasis mine):

• "PC4 (or k5), distributed across the Indus Valley, Central Asia, and the Caucasus, might represent the genetic vestige of the ANI (Figure S2). However, within India the geographic cline (the distance from Baluchistan) of the Indus/Caucasus signal (PC4 or k5) is very weak, which is unexpected under the ASI-ANI model, according to which the ANI contribution should decrease as one moves to the south of the subcontinent." (p.739)
• "We found no regional diversity differences associated with k5 at K ¼ 8. Thus, regardless of where this component was from (the Caucasus, Near East, Indus Valley, or Central Asia), its spread to other regions must have occurred well before our detection limits at 12,500 years. Accordingly, the introduction of k5 to South Asia cannot be explained by recent gene flow, such as the hypothetical Indo-Aryan migration." (p.740)

So, this is not about ANI, but about a hypothesized, but weak, connection between k5 and ANI. I'll correct this throughout. I'll also take a look at Sahoo (2006) again. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:52, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Metspalu is indeed quoted as saying "the West Eurasian component in Indians appears to come from a population that diverged genetically from people actually living in Eurasia, and this separation happened at least 12,500 years ago." And that's indeed quite different from 'no migration in the last 12,500 years', as suggested in the 2011 article. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:06, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

@JJ, I agree that the k5 and k6 of Metspalu et al (2011) look different from the ANI/ASI of Reich et al (2009). The k5 appears to be pretty uniform across India. Perhaps it was from the repopulation of India after the Toba catastrophe. Note that the Austro-Asiatic tribes and some of the Dravidian-speaking tribes lack this component. - Kautilya3 (talk) 11:50, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: it's interesting how scientific articles can carry subtle suggestions, which evaporate at close scrutiny! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:16, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Moorjani (2013) and Kivisild (1999)

Moorjani (2013) refers to Kivisild (1999) at p.430; yet, Kivisild (1999) does not mention 12,500 years etc. I'm quite sure the reference should be to Metspalu (2011). Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:52, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

According to Moorjani (2013), Metspalu (2011) ""failed to find any evidence for shared ancestry between the ANI and groups in West Eurasia within the past 12,500 years." What a weird statement; that's not what Metspalu (2011) says. Metspalu (2011) discerned a genetic component, k5, which is shared between Indus Valley, Central Asia, and the Caucasus, and might represent the "genetic vestige" of the ANI. yetm they also note that the sprad of k5 is not in line with the ASI-ANI model, and is probably much older. So, Moorjani (2013) is misrepresenting Metspalu (2011). What's going on here? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:03, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

The methods used by the Reich Lab and the Estonians are different. The Reich Lab people are using the full genomes of individuals and cross-comparing them statistically. The Estonians use traditional population genetics methods, which seem somehow to be inadequate for the Indian context. There is some kind of vague overlap between the ANI (of the Reich Lab) and the k5 (of the Estonians,) but the precise relationship is unknown. Both the Reich Lab and the Estonians are under pressure from their Indian collaborators to disprove the Indo-Aryan migration theory, or to at least put enough disclaimers in their writings. So, there is some hidden politics under the surface. The bottom line is that the geneticists overall will be reluctant to claim support for Indo-Aryan migration until they can find a genetic trail of the migration. That is apparently "crippled" at the moment because they don't have full genome data from regions around India. So, basically things are still unknown. That gives an opportunity for Lalji Singh to give grandiose press statements in the meantime, but I am surprised he has been remarkably quiet lately. Probably his collaborators leaned on him to keep quiet. - Kautilya3 (talk) 11:31, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Two waves of food producers

This is an interesting comment:

"ASI is misnamed as it relates to the southeast Asian Neolithic and the Austroasiatic languages. The most rational way to imagine ANI and ASI is two waves of food producers pouring into the subcontinent in its northern half from opposite sides."

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:43, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, that is the commenter's OR obviously. And, probably wrong. We don't know enough about ASI to tell where they came from. Basu (2015) have identified a separate strand `AAA' who were Austroasiatic. - Kautilya3 (talk) 21:02, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, Austro-Asiatic Indians, while largely ASI-like, have distinctive East Asian admixture which is lacking in high-ASI South Indians. This is also reflected in the Y chromosomes, where Mundari are dominated by haplogroup O2a1, most likely indeed of southern Chinese Neolithic origin, while O is scarcely to be found in South Indians. South Indian hill tribes have predominantly typically South Asian H1 and F*(xH1). It is not plausible that ASI in general comes from the East Asian Neolithic, though there were certainly older contacts with Southeast Asia that might be relevant. Megalophias (talk) 07:56, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Dravidian migrations (after IVC)

See [7]/[8]. The scenario seems to be from bloggers; nevertheless, it's interesting. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:31, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Indo-Aryan migration theory. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.ejvs.laurasianacademy.com/ejvs0104/ejvs0104article.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:10, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

"India has one of the most genetically diverse populations in the world"

This statement may be true, but Tibeto-Burman groups have nothing to do with Aryan migration.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 18:39, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Except that their descendants all live in India, and form parts of the great Indian genetic puzzle. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:12, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Tibeto-Burman groups have nothing to do with Aryan migration.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 19:31, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

There are numerous Aryan homelands hypothesized

Edwin Bryant:

I find all the IE homeland proposals offered so far to be highly problematic and unconvincing. Therefore, the entire homeland-locating enterprise, with its corollary of Indo-Aryan origins, despite the increase in the body of data available on the issue, has not advanced much further in my mind than the opinion expressed by Max Müller two centuries ago that the original point of origin is probably “somewhere in Asia, and no more." - page 470 of The Indo-Aryan Controversy

VictoriaGrayson^Talk 19:30, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

That is not the scholarly consensus. That is one man's opinion (and he's not an Indo-Europeanist, but an Indologist, with a POV). The broadest scholarly consensus accepts the Sredny Stog-Yamna cultural complexes as Proto-Indo-European. --Taivo (talk) 21:30, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Indeed. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:57, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Indo-Aryan migration theory. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20131224111409/http://turkic-languages.scienceontheweb.net/Proto_Turkic_Urheimat.html to http://turkic-languages.scienceontheweb.net/Proto_Turkic_Urheimat.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080528001253/http://www.omilosmeleton.gr/english/documents/VedicEvidenceforAMT.pdf to http://www.omilosmeleton.gr/english/documents/VedicEvidenceforAMT.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:31, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Lazaridis (2016)

Here's new stuff for contemplation, Lazaridis et al. (2016):

• "The impact of the Near Eastern farmers extended beyond the Near East: farmers related to those of Anatolia spread westward into Europe; farmers related to those of the Levant spread southward into East Africa; farmers related to those from Iran spread northward into the Eurasian steppe; and people related to both the early farmers of Iran and to the pastoralists of the Eurasian steppe spread eastward into South Asia." [9]
• "In South Asia, our dataset provides insight into the sources of Ancestral North Indians (ANI), a West Eurasian related population that no longer exists in unmixed form but contributes a variable amount of the ancestry of South Asians (Supplementary Information, section 9)(Extended Data Fig. 4). We show that it is impossible to model the ANI as being derived from any single ancient population in our dataset. However, it can be modelled as a mix of ancestry related to both early farmers of western Iran and to people of the Bronze Age Eurasian steppe; all sampled South Asian groups are inferred to have significant amounts of both ancestral types. The demographic impact of steppe related populations on South Asia was substantial, as the Mala, a south Indian population with minimal ANI along the ‘Indian Cline’ of such ancestry is inferred to have ~18% steppe-related ancestry, while the Kalash of Pakistan are inferred to have ~50%, similar to present-day northern Europeans." [10].

That's easy to interpret, isn't it? Dravidian Indus Valley Civilisation, with people derived from Iran, and the Indo-Europeans. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:34, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

The timeframe is important. How many thousands of years ago?VictoriaGrayson^Talk 17:42, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Don't know yet; I just printed the article, and have to read it. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:33, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Additional details

@Joshua Jonathan: I have added additional information from the study here.

Regrading ANI

• "Previous studies have uncovered evidence of admixture in South Asian populations from an “Ancestral North Indian” (ANI) source that is related to West Eurasian populations. It has been proposed that populations of the Caucasus such as Georgians were related to the ANI, a claim that has found additional support by the analysis of the Caucasus hunter-gatherers (CHG) from Georgia which appear to be a source of ancestry for South Asian populations. However, South Asia is also linked to the Eurasian steppe by the analysis of Y-chromosomes which detected the presence of Y-chromosome haplogroup R1a1a1b2-Z93 as a common element in ancient Bronze Age populations of eastern Europe, Mongolia, and Central/South Asia and which may mark spread of Indo-European languages eastward as suggested by the steppe origin theory of Indo-European languages."

Regrading ASI and ANI

• "The admixture history of ANI into the Indian subcontinent is likely to be complex, as there is evidence of more than one layer of admixture within the last 4,000 years. Moreover, unlike Europe where a substantial number of pre-agricultural hunter-gatherers is available for study, the earliest population substratum of the “Ancestral South Indians” (ASI) is only indirectly known by its distant relationship to the Onge hunter-gatherers from the Andaman Islands, a population that may be an imperfect proxy for the ASI. There is also evidence that Indian populations have ancestry related to Austroasiatic and Tibeto-Burman groups, although many of them can be modeled as a simpler mixture involving only the ANI-ASI ancestral populations."

Conclusions regrading ANI as admixture.

• "The analysis in this section reconciles the evidence presented in the first paragraph regarding the origin of the ANI by showing that is may be related both to “southern” populations related to Iran and the Caucasus and to “northern” steppe populations. Our results do not resolve the relationship between ANI and the origin of Indo-European speakers in South Asia, in the sense that they reveal that South Asian populations have ancestry both from regions related to the Eurasian steppe and.ancient Iran, which is compatible with alternative homeland solutions."

• "West Eurasian-related ANI ancestry in South Asia may pre-date, coincide with, or postdate Indo-European dispersals, although a partial link between the two is suggested by the evidence for Bronze Age admixture in India that contributed a large portion of ancestry especially in Indo-European speakers whose magnitude would be compatible with major linguistic change. However, ANI ancestry related to both ancient Iran and the steppe is found across South Asia making it difficult to associate it strongly with any particular language family (Indo-European or otherwise). Nonetheless, the fact that we can reject West Eurasian population sources from Anatolia, mainland Europe, and the Levant diminishes the likelihood that these areas were sources of Indo-European (or other) languages in South Asia."

Steppe-related ancestry in South Asia.

• "While the Early/Middle Bronze Age ‘Yamnaya’-related group (Steppe_EMBA) is a good genetic match (together with Neolithic Iran) for ANI, the later Middle/Late Bronze Age steppe population (Steppe_MLBA) is not. Steppe_MLBA includes Sintashta and Andronovo populations who have been proposed as identical to or related to ancestral Indo-Iranians, as well as the Srubnaya from eastern Europe which are related to South Asians by their possession of Y-chromosome haplogroup R1a1a1b2-Z935."

• "A useful direction of future research is a more comprehensive sampling of ancient DNA from steppe populations, as well as populations of central Asia (east of Iran and south of the steppe), which may reveal more proximate sources of the ANI than the ones considered here, and of South Asia to determine the trajectory of population change in the area directly."

Steppe-related ancestry % in study samples from supplementary.

• "The demographic impact of steppe related populations on South Asia was substantial, as the Mala, a south Indian population with minimal ANI along the ‘Indian Cline’ of such ancestry is inferred to have ~18% steppe-related ancestry, while the Kalash of Pakistan are inferred to have ~50%, similar to present-day northern Europeans."

• Kalash - 50.2%, Tiwari Brahmins - 44.1%, Gujarati (four samples) - 46.1% to 27.5%, Pathan - 44.6%, Burusho- 42.5%, Sindhi - 37.7%, Punjabi - 32.6%, Balochi - 32.4, Brahui - 30.2%, Lodhi - 29.3%, Vishwabhramin - 20.4%, Makrani - 19.2%, Mala - 18.4%, Kusunda - 8.9%, Kharia - 6.5%.

Lazaridis et al (2016) and Lazaridies et al (2016) supplementary information. Ilber8000 (talk) 18:31, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

@Ilber8000: thanks. I read this too; reading it again, in this configuration, it seems to suggest even clearer that:

• ANI is a mix of Iranian migrations and Indo-European migrations;
• R1a-Z93 was brought to India by the Indo-Europeans.

Broushaki et. al (2016) seem to think along the same line, and hav every interesting findings on Iranian migrations. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:55, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan: I have read Broushaki et al (2016) but found it similar to Lazaridis et al (2016).

Broushaki et al (2016) : Regrading Zagros_Neolithic and possible Indo-Iranian or Dravidian migration.

"It is not clear if this is sufficient to explain the spread of Indo-European languages from a hypothesized Steppe homeland to the region where Indo-Iranian languages are spoken today. On the other hand, the affinities of Zagros Neolithic individuals to modern populations of Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran, and India is consistent with a spread of Indo-Iranian languages, or of Dravidian languages (which includes Brahui), from the Zagros into southern Asia, in association with farming"

It's notable that Zagros_Neolithic peaks in Balochi and Markani of Balochistan as shown in Lazaridis et al (2016) but they carry low steppe-related ancestry compared to Indo-Aryan speakers so it's possible that Zagros_Neolithic din't have much to do with spread of Indo-European languages. Ilber8000 (talk) 13:46, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Yep. So, that means that there has been migration (probably over a longer span of time) from Iran into Pakistan/India. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:09, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Too much primary research, too long, too bloated, too user-unfriendly

• WP:SIZE: 193,862 bytes, about four times the recommended size. According to WP it would take two hours to read this article.
• WP:REFBLOAT: 275 references.
• WP:PRIMARY: The article is so missing on what actually is the consensus. E.g. this sort of thing, picked at random: "According to Erdosy, the ancient Harappans ... Craniometric data showed similarity .... According to Kennedy, there is no evidence ... Kenoyer notes that no biological evidence can be found ... Hemphill notes that 'patterns of phonetic affinity'" This is verbose and frankly of little use. This needs to be replaced with info from a secondary source.
• cruft and duplication: there's so much content that's redundant. Much of it should be removed and the redirects put in place. As it is, there are 36 links to "See also" and "Main article".
• Notes: 54 notes and 6 subnotes, plus a bloated reference system. So here is the actual workflow:

1. read some text
2. click a note for elaboration
3. read the note
4. click on the subnote
5. read the subnote
6. click on the reference
7. read the reference (e.g. "Bryant 2001")
8. click on "Bryant 2001"
9. read the "published source"

Not really easy to use. Try doing that on a phone or tablet. I'd like to see some reasons why the above should not be fixed. --Cornellier (talk) 02:53, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Because some people need to be spelled it out in all the available details and sources before they stop questioning the concencus. See Talk:Indigenous Aryans/Archive 3#RfC: the "Indigenous Aryans" theory is fringe-theory for the kind of discussions we've had here. The "Continuity" section, to which you are referring, may be an example of this; I guess it was added by someone who doesn't like the current academic status quo. It's not useless, though, because this section does rightfully notice that the impact of the Indo-Europeans was not as huge, at least not in all aspects, as one might expect. There's food for thought there, as it implies that there was no "Aryan invasion", but a less radical migration. And Bryant is a secondary source.

Anyway, the lead and the first section, "Description of the Indo-Aryan Migration theory", are pretty clear on the concencus. Readable enough for a phone, I guess. For more substance, or editing, maybe you should use a laptop or desktop; that makes it also easier to actually look-up those sources. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:32, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Concerning the use of primary sources, it is a known issue for this type of article, but hard to avoid. This happens in subject areas where research is ongoing and every major paper is coming up with new things. The secondary sources struggle to keep up. But if there are good secondary sources not being used, the thing to do is to propose them.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:11, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Page move proposal

In 2015, Mange01 moved "Indo-Aryan migration" to "Indo-Aryan migration hypothesis." This unilateral move was the onset of heated discussions on the status of the current academic research on the Indo-Aryan migrations, which is not 'just a hypothesis', and resulted in another move to "Indo-Aryan migration theory." Given this status, and WP:COMMONNAME (see Google "Indo-Aryan migration" -wikipedia), I'd like to propose to move this article to "Indo-Aryan migrations" (plural). The socalled "Indo-Aryan migration theory," which de facto refers to the Steppe-theory, does not stand on its own, but is part of a larger theoretical framework on the origins and spread of the Indo-European languages; in this context it is more accurate to speak of "Indo-Aryan migration(s)," and of the "steppe theory." Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:45, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Comments

• Support per above. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:45, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
• Support - Agreed. Indo-Aryan migrations is not a separate theory, but it is part of the overall study of Indo-European origins. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:15, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
• Support – Keep it simple and NPOV. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 01:44, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
• Support - Getting "theory" out of the title of the majority opinion is always a good thing. --Taivo (talk) 10:25, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

@Drmies and Vanamonde93: could one of you close this discussion and move this page? Thanks. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:24, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan: To be honest I'd rather not perform this move, as I've been involved in the content side of this debate rather too often. Although a number of the stalwarts in my fan club are now blocked, somebody is still likely to cry foul if I take an admin action here. Additionally, I'm afraid I don't really see the reasoning behind the plural in the new title. Surely "Indo-Aryan migration" is more accurate? Vanamonde (talk) 06:42, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: I understand your hesitance; I'd considered this myself too. Regarding the plural: as far as I know, it was not just one move or migration, nor from the steppes into Bactria, nor from Bactria into Iran and India, but several movements and tribes. Therefor my proposal to use the plural, to acknowledgement the complexities of these movements and changes. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:12, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Hat note

A hat note on top to Indigenous Aryans is WP:UNDUE since it is a fringe "theory." It is mentioned in a subsection; that suffices. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:14, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

stement ?

In the notes to the article a phrase like "does not make this stement" is found.

Should it rest "stement", or is "statement" meant? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:2012:1:1121:0:0:0:1 (talk) 22:00, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks for pointing it out. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:38, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Attributing Indra and Soma to BMAC with little evidence

The article cites [109] and treats the following sentence as a well known fact: "At least 383 non-Indo-European words were borrowed from this culture, including the god Indra and the ritual drink Soma.[109]," when it is just a possible theory or postulate. I suggest changing the sentence to read "David Anthony postulates that at least 383 ..." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:30A:C0B1:3B70:DC9B:D1BD:D267:F387 (talk) 21:13, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Too bothersome to give a full cite, instead of copying the reference number? The reference is Anthony (2007), "The Horse etc.", p.454-455. Anthony cites Alexander Lubotsky, so if we are to attribute, we should attribute to Lubotsky. The phrase "possible theory or postulate" is meaningless; leaving out the term "possible," it is not "just" a theory, but a theory cited in multiple reliable sources, including Anthony. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:51, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't see a need for attribution, unless there are other reliable sources that contradict it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:32, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

I read Lubotsky 2001 which is referenced and I don't see how this is anything more than a hypothesis or postulate. Lubotsky himself clearly begins section 5.2 with "Starting with the assumption that ...". A hypothesis becomes an accepted theory only after enough evidence accumulates. Citations are just accepting this as a fact and not necessarily providing additional evidence to support this. Also Lubotsky only mentions that Indra might be a loan-word and does not provide clear evidence for the fact that Indra is borrowed from BMAC. There is no archaeological evidence to support the hypothesis that the BMAC worshipped Indra and no linguistic evidence that the BMAC language had the word Indra. This may not be the best source but in Rigveda and Avesta the final evidence (Page 102), Shrikant Talageri criticizes the Lubotsky argument as circular. Furthermore, Lubotsky 2001 seems to have been published when the Aryan Invasion Theory was in vogue as is evidenced by his claim of "an indication of Aryan military supremacy" in Section 5.2. However, the aryan invasion theory based on the Aryan military supremacy has little archaelogical evidence either in BMAC or the Indus region. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:30A:C0B1:3B70:DC9B:D1BD:D267:F387 (talk) 19:37, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Pre-IVC Cultures

I Was wondering why there isn't any mention of the Mehrgarh and Soanian Cultures and the Riwat people? These would seem like obvious counter arguments against the Indo-Aryan Migration theories because it gives an in-situ example of settlement in that area since about 10,000 BCE with cultural remnants visible from burials that correlate to similar cultural practices today as attested in literature and folk practices. Cheers!207.251.43.98 (talk) 21:56, 22 September 2016 (UTC) Rajimus123

Sources? You probably refer to Shaffer and Lichtenstein p.83. Thee's nothing in the IAmt which says that the Indo-Aryans were present at Mehrgarh at 7,000 BCE, let alone brought their culture there at that time... And even if there are "similar cultural practices" today, it does not mean that there were no migrations after 7,000 BCE. See, for example, the existence of Islam in India... Mehrgarh itself my have been strongly influenced by Iranian cultures. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:10, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

No I hadn't been referring to Shaffer et al. I was just making an observation that this page seems to be all over the place and uses language that promotes the theory as fact. There's fragments of counterarguments in the "controversy" section but otherwise it seems like another project by a caucasian Indologist that ascribes to the stories put for only by a Marxist voice. I was just pointing out that the presence of the Soanian culture, the progression of Mehrgarh, the lack of concrete weapons evidence, the lack of concrete archaeological evidence, the genetic evidence that outweighs the evidence you've presented, etc. All I'm saying is that the page seems more like what I'm used to reading from European perspectives on Indian origins than something truly inclusive of the nuances of the debate. Rather than a page surrounding the debate around Indo-Aryan Migration Theory, this seems more like promoting the IAmt as fact. Which is technically Marxist and technically POV. Is the point of this page for you to prove that Indians came to India from outside, because then it seems like you are using the same type of logic that Dalrymple used to manipulate Muller's amateur work. As well you spend an inordinately small amount of time discussing the Rg Veda which, as an oral record of the "Aryan" people, is kind of the nail in the coffin against an invasion. Using your reference to Islam to my point, yes migrations happen but as can be seen by the state of Muslims now in India that plays a counter against the argument for a migration and co-mingling. Why? Because Indians (North and South) are steadfastly endogenous, a principle that is attested to in literature at least from the Yajurveda onwards (describing a man's eligibility to perform certain sacrifices). The Islam example just adds to the idea that an outside group can not enter and co-mingle. Even after about 300 years of severe cultural oppression (1500-1750s) there is only a superficial cultural impact and almost no genetic differences... Sorry for the rant, I just realized what I was actually mad about. I think its the lack of insider, non-marxist sources combined with the fact that, personally reading the page, I get a feeling of European supremacism rearing its head. Still admirable work though207.251.43.98 (talk) 21:50, 25 October 2016 (UTC)Rajimus123

Indeed, Joshua Jonathan did an admirable writing this page. It describes the ideas of archaeologists, linguists and historians. If you think they are all wrong, you need to go find a journal to submit your ideas to. Wikipedia is not the place for it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:29, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't disagree that he has put an extensive amount of work into and admirability is in the eye of the beholder. Mein Kampf had work put into it and whether you find it admirable depends on your view of the writer, which may or may not be affected by a post-colonization inferiority complex but that's another discussion. The fact still remains that he's presenting the theories as facts when there is still significant controversy about the credibility of the historians, the effectiveness of linguistics as a measure for population migration and the supporting archaeology is actually scant. Then of course there is the fact that the racism issue is barely discussed. Having actually read through the entire article and all the sources (it's taken months), the evidences presented in the manner that JJ has don't create a convincing picture. I don't think you read my comment at all or the entire article. My entire point is that the POV he presents makes IAMT seem like a fact when there is significant debate on this issue. Rather than presenting the debate in the entirety, he presents the Western Academic (race-based) view as fact which is incorrect. That's all I'm saying. Perhaps make an informed opinion. Reading through a bunch of your comments on the Indian articles it's quite obvious that your main impression of being informed is to accept Western theory and negate indigenous theories, a common tactic and it is quite transparent by your comments that you assume any Indian wanting a balanced view of the representation of their culture is a right-winger. 207.251.43.98 (talk) 19:47, 4 January 2017 (UTC) Rajimus123

I encourage you to try and edit some pieces of this article.. and see for yourself how large a shit-storm it causes. Crawford88 (talk) 09:55, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Balanced views are welcome; promotion of nonWP:RS "indigenous theories" is not. "Balanced views" means to include all the major, and the relevant minor, viewpoints, as found in WP:RS. Nor are WP:PERSONALATTACK and comparisons with Nazis. So far, I see a lot of personal attacks, a lot of suggestions which point to a WP:FRINGE point of view, and no source whatsoever. Please remember that a talk is not a WP:FORUM. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:45, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

@207.251.43.98: You are in for a ban, my friend even before editing this page :). See [1]. Crawford88 (talk) 08:29, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Original Research

In one edit a cautious, precise, and generally applicable, introductory sentence was turned into a narrowly-defined factual statement. Indo-Aryan migration theories, the various scenarios for the dispersal of unattested ancestor languages, have been around in comparative and historical linguistics for over a century. See Masica, Colin P. (9 September 1993). "The Historical Context and Development of Indo-Aryan". The Indo-Aryan Languages. Cambridge University Press. pp. 32–60. ISBN 978-0-521-29944-2. Just because David Anthony has written a popular trade paperback, one such scenario doesn't overnight become the only theory. I'm afraid, I see original research being conducted on a large-scale in this and other linguistic reconstruction pages. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:55, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Original research? Hmm... Anyway, I've re-inserted that part of the old lead. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:16, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Missing information

This page misses the critical information that if we accept the argument that the linguistic analysis of Indo-European languages establishes that the people of India and Europe are Aryans, then it also postulates that the Jewish people are not Aryans. It seems dishonest to leave out this information simply because Hitler too used the argument. From an academic viewpoint, it is important to address this point not merely as an abuse by Nazis but in a tone that advocates the point if the rest of the theory is treated as legitimate.

The other point that has been conveniently left out is that the story of Noah's Ark and the Tower of Babel were responsible for the formulation of the racial angle and linguistic angles of these theories. See publications by Tom Trautmann and Stefan Arviddson for an elaboration of these two angles.

The short version of the race angle is that all of us on earth are descendants of Noah and our ancestors dispersed from wherever his sons settled down. Since Noah cursed Ham that his progeny would be the slaves of the descendants of the other two sons Shem and Japhet, blacks became slaves of whites. The descendants of Shem are the Semitic race and the Japhetic race was renamed as Aryan race in the 19th century.

The short version of the linguistic angle is that the search for the original location of the language of Tower of Babel gave rise to the field of linguistics and the Aryan Invasion/Migration theory based on such analysis. See Tom Trautmann's works for the elaboration of this fact.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.0.199.121 (talk • contribs) 19:03, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

This page is about the Indo-Aryan migrations, not about Aryan mythologies. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:53, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Indo-Aryan migration theory. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304073824/http://genetics.med.harvard.edu/reich/Reich_Lab/Press_files/Fountain%20Ink%20-%20December%202013%20-%20Cover.pdf to https://genetics.med.harvard.edu/reich/Reich_Lab/Press_files/Fountain%20Ink%20-%20December%202013%20-%20Cover.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:41, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Extra apostrophe in picture caption should be removed

Hi! It doesn't look like an unregistered user can change this, so can someone please change the caption on the fourth picture down from "A 1910 depiction of Aryan's entering India from Hutchinson's History of the Nations." to "A 1910 depiction of Aryans entering India from Hutchinson's History of the Nations."

If I missed how to do this myself, my apologies!

 Fixed--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 16:03, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

That's an interesting perspective, Aryans coming from a textbook into India! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:04, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Race agenda

[Section Indo-Aryan migration theory#Racism says:]

"the origin of the theory was intertwined with the desire of many in the Western world to find the origin of a pure Aryan race, the division of castes by racial basis"

I have heard it said that Max Muller was trying to justify the colonization of India by the AMT. I have never heard it being linked to the Nordic race theories. I believe the statement needs to be more specific about who was developing it for a racial agenda, or it can be discarded- as in "who" not just "many in the western world". Also it has nothing to do with the "origin" of a pure aryan race. as they were foreigners. Max Muller was a contemporary of Blavatsky, who developed the Nordic race 50 years before Nazis. I don't think they had any common interests.
Also the Aryans DID have a racial caste system (caste means pure race, so the term is a little redundant). This is proved by genetics TODAY. I don't have the cited sources available to check, but am suspicious of them.71.161.203.168 (talk) 02:16, 3 May 2017 (UTC)John Dee

Several factual inaccuracies there, m8.

• "the Aryans DID have a racial caste system (caste means pure race, so the term is a little redundant)". No. Caste is a Portuguese word. India had Varna (Hinduism) and Jāti. Varna is what is today mostly associated with Caste, but it has no racial basis. Check out the wiki page Caste_system_in_India#Definitions_and_concepts for a detailed treatment. Also, caste in India doesn't mean pure race as you have alleged.
• "This is proved by genetics TODAY". On the contrary, recent genetic evidence show little to no difference between various 'castes', but minor variation only because of endogamy of a few centuries. See [Moorjani et al (2017), "Genetic Evidence for Recent Population Mixture in India."].

References

Crawford88 (talk) 05:12, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

User:71.161.203.168, I agree that the section should be expanded. Please feel free to do so, but based on what the cited sources say. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:03, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

The source cited says that Vysya, for example, have had negligible gene flow from neighbours for 3000 years. Where's the "endogamy for a few centuries"? Megalophias (talk) 01:50, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

[Basu et al. (2016) write:]

"Analysis of ancestral haplotype blocks revealed that extant mainland populations(i) admixed widely irrespective of ancestry, although admixturesbetween populations was not always symmetric, and (ii) this prac-tice was rapidly replaced by endogamy about 70 generations ago,among upper castes and Indo-European speakers predominantly." .

References

The quote you cited from previous paper was describing outliers.

70 generations is around 2000 years. That is not "a few centuries". Megalophias (talk) 02:47, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

• @71.161.203.168: The interpunction seems to have caused some confusion; I've replaced "," with ";"; I hope this helps. Expansion would be good indeed.
• @71.161.203.168 and Crawford88: to say that

"the Aryans DID have a racial caste system (caste means pure race, so the term is a little redundant). This is proved by genetics TODAY."

is probably too simple. The IVC already was a stratified society; the Indo-Aryans, who themselves no doubt also had a stratified society (it was the male elite of this society which came to India, as far as we can deduce), merged into the elite of the post-IVC population, introducing Indo-Aryan genes to the gene-pole. The strongest traces of this mixture can be found in the higher strata of Indian society ('a Brahman has a light skin'...). A long period of admixture spread this Indo-Aryan contribution to the gene-pool throughout India, until endogamy set in. This endogamy was based on, c.q. reinforced, already existing social divisions which also carried physical components.

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:16, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

• Stephanie Jamison and Joel Brereton state, "there is no evidence in the Rigveda for an elaborate, much-subdivided and overarching caste system", and "the varna system seems to be embryonic in the Rigveda and, both then and later, a social ideal rather than a social reality". Jamison, Stephanie; et al. (2014). The Rigveda : the earliest religious poetry of India. Oxford University Press. pp. 57–58.
• The reason why there are Hindu myths about the destruction of Kshatriyas, is because they never existed in the first place. Varna is as mythological as Rama.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 15:01, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Nobody here claims that there was an elaborate caste system in Vedic times. What is traditionally thought to have existed in the Vedic period is a set of three classes of freemen, ethnically exclusive to Aryans, the Shudra class of servants, which included both Aryans and non-Aryans, and the casteless non-Aryan population, outside of Vedic culture. The borders between these classes were not yet rigid at the time, and the endogamy only started about 1900 years ago, from which time on the ancient castes/classes (varna) subdivided further and further into the numerous (smaller and endogamous) castes (jati) characteristic of the modern system.

As for Kshatriyas and Varna being completely mythological, that's an unsupported assertion and I therefore reject it. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 21:41, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Srauta Sutra of Baudhayana

While linking, I noticed Baudhayana Shrauta Sutra#BSS 18:44 controversy. Indo-Aryan_migration_theory#Srauta_Sutra_of_Baudhayana does not mention that this is controversial translation. Should we change anything? --Nizil (talk) 05:13, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Book citations

Majority of the citations in the article seem to refer to three popular books on the subject

-- Empires of the Silk Road: A History of Central Eurasia from the Bronze Age to the Present, Beckwith 2009

-- The Horse The Wheel And Language. How Bronze-Age Riders From the Eurasian Steppes Shaped The Modern World, Anthony 2007

-- The Origin of the Indo-Iranians, Kuz'mina 2007

For instance citation [95] refers to Beckwith 2009, p. 32. If you dig into Beckwith 2009 p. 32 it ultimately refers to Witzel (2003) after a couple of indirect links. Shouldn't [95] refer directly to Witzel (2003)? Similarly [109] refers to Anthony 2007, p. 454-455 which itself refers to Lubotsky 2001. Shouldn't [109] refer to Lubotsky 2001 directly? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:30A:C0B1:3B70:81FD:D037:D600:18BE (talk) 20:31, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

No, as explained in WP:RS, encyclopedias should cite WP:SECONDARY sources as far as possible. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:32, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

The fact that people have referred Witzel in their work doesn't not make it primary. WP:PRIMARY states that "A primary source (also called original source or evidence) is an artifact, a document, diary, manuscript, autobiography, a recording, or any other source of information that was created at the time under study." The object of study here is IAMT, not Witzel's work. Crawford88 (talk) 12:46, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

The fact that people have referred Witzel in their work doesn't not make it primary. No it doesn't. What makes it "PRIMARY" is that it contains Witzel's novel and original interpretations. Research papers almost always do. Otherwise, they would not be worthy of publication. SECONDARY sources are those that have very little originality of their own, but summarise what is known from other PRIMARY sources. They tend to describe settled facts or viewpoints, and often gloss over old, pointless controversies. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:58, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Okay. Can you pls point me to appropriate wiki guideline(s) which defines primary sources as such? Because everywhere I read, they define primary source as 'close' to the event/subject. Crawford88 (talk) 10:56, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

See WP:USEPRIMARY. However, the ideas of PRIMARY and SECONDARY are relative and neither of them is banned. We have to use our judgement as to how much PRIMARY material we can use. But, as far as the OP's question is concerned, it was in the wrong direction. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:06, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Razib Khan: "Aryan wars"

Another contribution by Razib Khan, in Indiatoday: Aryan wars: Controversy over new study claiming they came from the west 4,000 years ago. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:31, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

A geneticist. Not a historian, archaeologist or linguist. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:15, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

He's well-known, of course, for his stance on Indo-European migrations, but it's a sign of the times (I hope) that mainstream Indian media are finally paying attention to mainstream scholarly conclusions on the IE-migrations. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:23, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Sintashta, Andronovo, BMAC, Indo-Iranians

The article says

Eastward emerged the Sintashta culture (2100–1800 BCE), from which developed the Andronovo culture (1800–1400 BCE). This culture interacted with the Bactria-Margiana Culture (2300–1700 BCE); out of this interaction developed the Indo-Iranians, which split around 1800 BCE into the Indo-Aryans and the Iranians.

This sentence seems to suggest Indo-Aryans are contemporary with Andronovo culture (1800 BCE). Then how could the Andronovo culture have interacted with BMAC to develop Indo-Iranians from whom the Indo-Aryans branched off in 1800 BCE? If "This culture" refers to Sintashta instead why bring up Andronovo? Also it looks like Sintashta and BMAC are pretty far apart to have had a common development. Overall, the whole sentence sounds pretty illogical unless the dates are updated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.198.105.21 (talk) 01:43, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Huh? I don't see the contradiction. The sentence isn't claiming that the Sintashta culture interacted with the BMAC, but the Andronovo! And both geographically and temporally, the fit is unproblematic (Andronovo and BMAC co-existed in Central Asia in 1800–1700 BC). The Sintashta culture is considered linguistically Proto-Indo-Iranian, more or less, the Andronovo post-Proto-Indo-Iranian, i. e. Common Indo-Iranian as a dialect continuum, after the split into Indo-Aryan and Iranian. "This culture" clearly refers to its immediate antecedent, Andronovo, not the culture mentioned earlier, Sintashta; this is the general rule in English anaphora. I don't see how the text can be misunderstood unless one's command of English is so poor that one does not know this basic rule. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 21:20, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

So you mean to say Andronovo and BMAC interacted between 1800-1700 BCE (your quote) and out of this interaction developed the Indo-Iranians (direct quote from the article), which split around 1800 BCE (quote from article) which is before the interaction. (I'm intentionally ignoring the personal attack because I do want to correct the inconsistencies in the article and because this is not a Brietbart comment section). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2620:0:102F:1100:EDB0:2AF6:EDD4:4FF5 (talk) 21:57, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Take a chill pill; to construe a personal attack out of this, you need to assume mighty bad faith – which is also pretty hypocritical in view of your evident socking (glass-house, meet stones). I do not agree at all with the hypothesis that the Indo-Iranians developed out of this interaction. They clearly existed before. As I stated above, the Sintashta culture is linguistically identified as Proto-Indo-Iranian, and the Andronovo culture as Common Indo-Iranian. Per Indo-Iranians#Origin, which cites Mallory 1989, the divergence of Proto-Indo-Iranian is estimated to have started already by 2000 BC at the latest, still in the Sintashta period. So there is no inconsistence. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 23:07, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Ok, great. Then can you please update this sentence "Eastward emerged the Sintashta culture (2100–1800 BCE), from which developed the Andronovo culture (1800–1400 BCE). This culture interacted with the Bactria-Margiana Culture (2300–1700 BCE); out of this interaction developed the Indo-Iranians, which split around 1800 BCE into the Indo-Aryans and the Iranians." which is currently found in the article with what you are suggesting along with the appropriate references. Can we agree that this sentence is inconsistent and it is clearly different from what your are suggesting and needs to be replaced? And can you also go back to my original comment and see if your first reply was appropriate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.198.105.22 (talk) 23:20, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

I've corrected the passage. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:19, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Update lead

Lead should be updated and expanded. There should summary of recent Genetic studies which changed the understanding of the theory in the lead. Currently lead says nothing about it.--Nizil (talk) 05:44, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Tricky stuff. The inclusion of recent genetical research is already debated, per WP:RECENTISM; to include it in the lead asks for a balanced summary. Do you have a suggestion? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:08, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't think it should go into the lead. It is still an active research area, and no firm conclusions can be reached. It is also hard to find secondary sources. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:30, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Sorry for too late reply. @Joshua Jonathan and Kautilya3:, please check out below Silva et al. 2017 and The Hindu article. Does it settle down the debate based on new genetic research? It also discusses past genetic research. Please update the article and lead if required.--Nizil (talk) 06:41, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Silva et al (2017)

Central Asian source pool for various R1a clads found in South Asia.

"Altogether, therefore, the recently refined Y-chromosome tree strongly suggests that R1a is indeed a highly plausible marker for the long-contested Bronze Age spread of Indo-Aryan speakers into South Asia, although dated aDNA evidence will be needed for a precise estimate of its arrival in various parts of the Subcontinent. aDNA will also be needed to test the hypothesis that there were several streams of Indo-Aryan immigration (each with a different pantheon), for example with the earliest arriving ~3.4 ka and those following the Rigveda several centuries later. Although they are closely related, suggesting they likely spread from a single Central Asian source pool, there do seem to be at least three and probably more R1a founder clades within the Subcontinent, consistent with multiple waves of arrival." Source: Marina Silva, Marisa Oliveira, Daniel Vieira et al (2017), A genetic chronology for the Indian Subcontinent points to heavily sex-biased dispersals

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilber8000 (talk • contribs) 15:18, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

The above paper and other papers are rewriting the debate. This article in The Hindu summaries it. Have a look. --Nizil (talk) 06:37, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Wow! And Indian newspaper which admits that the IAmt is correct! Now that is news! The Hindu:

The thorniest, most fought-over question in Indian history is slowly but surely getting answered: did Indo-European language speakers, who called themselves Aryans, stream into India sometime around 2,000 BC – 1,500 BC when the Indus Valley civilisation came to an end, bringing with them Sanskrit and a distinctive set of cultural practices? Genetic research based on an avalanche of new DNA evidence is making scientists around the world converge on an unambiguous answer: yes, they did.

@Florian Blaschke: come around and enjoy. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:54, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Yet, I don't think it should go into the lead (yet), but we do have to mention that the balance is swifting toward 'genetic confirmation' of the IAmt. The same tune is whistling quite loudly at eurogenes.blogspot: "Heavily sex-biased" population dispersals into the Indian Subcontinent. I'll ponder over it. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:00, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Please also checkout Silva et al reserach paper too. The paper is already mentioned in article.--Nizil (talk) 14:17, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan:, New rebuttal by Swaraj (though not considered as RS). Have a look.-Nizil (talk) 16:30, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. It's clear that they don't like these recent papers; getting to close. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:55, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Geneticists K. Thangaraj & G. Chaubey write article for The Hindu, Too early to settle the Aryan migration debate? Some highlights:-

K. Thangaraj is with the CSIR-Centre for Cellular and Molecular Biology, Hyderabad and G. Chaubey is with the Estonian Biocentre in Tartu, Estonia.

India is a nation of close to 4,700 ethnic populations, including socially stratified communities, many of which have maintained endogamy (marrying within the community) for thousands of years, and these have been hardly sampled in the Y chromosome analysis led by Silva et al., and so do not provide an accurate characterisation of the R1a frequencies in India (several tribal populations carry substantial frequency of haplogroup R1a).

Equally important to understand is that the Y chromosome phylogeny suffered genetic drift (lineage loss), and thus there is a greater chance to lose less frequent R1a branches, if one concentrates only on specific populations, keeping in mind the high level of endogamy of the Subcontinent. These are extremely important factors one should consider before making any strong conclusions related to Indian populations.

The statement made by Silva et al. that 17.5% of Indians carry R1a haplogroup actually means that 17.5% of the samples analysed by them (those who live in U.K. and U.S.) carry R1a, not that 17.5% of Indians carry R1a!

We agree that the major Indian R1a1 branch, i.e. L657, is not more than 5,000 years old. However, the phylogenetic structure of this branch cannot be considered as a derivative of either Europeans or Central Asians. The split with the European is around 6,000 years and thereafter the Asian branch (Z93) gave rise to the South Asian L657, which is a brother branch of lineages present in West Asia, Europe and Central Asia. Such kind of expansion, universally associated with most of the Y chromosome lineages of the world, as shown in 2015 by Monika Karmin et al., was most likely due to dramatic decline in genetic diversity in male lineages four to eight thousand years ago (Genome Research, 2015; 4:459-66). Moreover, there is evidence which is consistent with the early presence of several R1a branches in India (our unpublished data).

Tony Joseph (journalist) responds, along with email quote from Silva et al :-

In an email to me on May 29, weeks before my article was published, this is what Prof. Richards said about the sample: “It’s true that some of the 1000 Genomes Project (1KGP) sequences that we analysed for genome-wide and Y-chromosome data were sampled from Indians in the U.K. and U.S., and lack tribal groups, which might well be an issue for a detailed regional study of the subcontinent (our mtDNA database was much larger). But we are simply looking at the big picture across the region (what was the role of Palaeolithic, Neolithic and Bronze Age settlement, primarily) and the signals we describe across the five 1KGP sample sets are clear and consistent and also fit well with the lower-resolution data that has been collected in the past (e.g. for R1a distributions). By putting everything together, we feel the sketch of the big picture that we propose is very well supported, even though there will certainly be a huge amount of further analysis needed to work through the regional details.”

The problem with proposing ‘Out of India’ as that explanation is the following: it is not as if the ‘Out of India’ hypothesis is new; it has been around for decades. But the rejoinder makes no reference to a single peer-reviewed genetic study that makes a serious case for ‘Out of India’.

Ilber8000 (talk) 01:57, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

I was here for new updates but already posted by Ilber8000. Does this Silva papers changes the balance in debate? I am bit confused about it. Thanks.--Nizil (talk) 18:20, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Whether it "changes the balance" depends on where you stand. It confirms what historians have been saying all along. So those that didn't believe the historians are in trouble. No doubt they have been bad-mouthing the Silva article. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:06, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Agree. Out of India may have been a respectable idea in Schlegel's day but after the Neogrammarians realised in the 1870s that the Greek/Latin vocalism couldn't be explained on the basis of the Sanskrit one, and therefore must be more original, OOI was finally toast. It simply ceased to be a viable possibility. The problems with the hypothesis are overwhelming; nothing fits – unless you make it fit, by hook or by crook, into a Procrustean bed of preconception. One crucial piece of evidence that the article fails to mention is the contact between Indo-Iranian and Uralic, going back all the way to Proto-Indo-Iranian and Proto-Uralic, or even before. OOI hasn't been a serious contender for over a century, based on the linguistic (and also cultural) evidence alone. OOI is as dead as a doornail, and the genetic evidence is only the final nail in the coffin. All that's left are hypocritical cries of racism and conspiracy by Hindutva fascists and their sympathisers. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 01:00, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Archaeological evidence is left too, but since the matter is too old, it is unlikely to establish anything anytime soon. Capitals00 (talk) 02:39, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks @Iber8000: for these quotations. Capitals00 (talk) 02:40, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for explanations.-Nizil (talk) 06:56, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

@Capitals00: Archaeological evidence in itself does not prove anything because pots do not talk (unless they are inscribed), i. e., they do not generally reveal the identity of the culture they are associated with. Archaeological evidence is therefore not primary evidence (for this kind of theory) and can only be helpful in the context of a larger historical scenario which it can be fit into, for example it can be used to establish tentative (!) cultural boundaries. Ethnolinguistic identification of archaeological cultures is a notoriously difficult, controversial problem fraught with peril, and is only sensible when you combine evidence from various sources (linguistic, cultural, archaeological, genetic). Aikio 2012 is one paper that has useful theoretical remarks on this issue.

@Ilber8000: Seconded. Thanks for the quotations. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 19:22, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Nothing new. Just an overview: The Aryan Chromosome by Indian Express.--Nizil (talk) 05:02, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

@Florian Blaschke: thanks for the comment on Uralic influences. The Aryan Chromosome mentions this too. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:19, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Ecological cause of urban collapse and pastoral migrations

Interesting quote from The Aryan Chromosome:

This time was one of great upheaval for ecological reasons. Prolonged failure of rains caused acute water shortage in a large area, causing the collapse of sedentary urban cultures in south central Asia, Afghanistan, Iran, and India, and triggering large-scale migrations. Inevitably, the new arrivals came to merge with and dominate the post-urban cultures.

Eurogenes blogspot made a similar comment:

Correct me if I'm straying from the facts, but the 4300–3800 YBP date mentioned in this new paper at Eurasian Soil Science, on the "catastrophic aridization" of the steppes in the Lower Volga region, is roughly the time when big, tall, round headed folks rich in Yamnaya-related ancestry basically hijack the Beaker phenomenon, and just before the collapse of the Indus Valley Civilization and, according to most sane people, the arrival of Indo-Europeans in South Asia. Coincidence?

We've never mentioned these facts in the articles on Indo-European migrations, nor Indo-Aryan migration theory, have we? But it makes perefect sense, and gives a 'simple' and cohesive explanation for both developments. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:19, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Note, however, that it doesn't square with the following (dubious) claim:

Since societies were male-driven and migrants would have been accompanied by very few women, studies of Y-chromosome variations which track the male line are far more important for establishing correlations with historical periods.

So these people left their women to die in the "catastrophic aridization" and went looking for greener pastures? Not a chance. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:46, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Well, that's exactly what the theory says: the man leave. Compare with the Vikings and the Crusaders? Anyway, there's more on climate change in that period:

• Bond event and 4.2 kiloyear event
• Emma Maris (2014), Two-hundred-year drought doomed Indus Valley Civilization, Nature

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:44, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

It was young, still unmarried men (marya, compare maryannu) who left their families for greener pastures and to take foreign wives – see Ver sacrum, de:Männerbund, de:Vratya, Landnahme; ancient Indo-European peoples had a characteristic pattern of expansion, migration and colonisation well-studied by – largely German-speaking – philologists and historians of the 19th and early 20th century. Of course, modern academics – especially scientists – are mostly ignorant of this research, which is not only largely written in German, but has also been tainted by the association with German nationalism. But really, talking about the realities of Indo-European migrations without even mentioning the Männerbund phenomenon is ridiculous.

As for the Indus Valley drought, do you folks mean this? --Florian Blaschke (talk) 01:00, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Yep. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:09, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Florian. The possibility did occur to me, but I didn't know that it had been studied. If young, unmarried men were the ones that migrated, a lot of other consequences follow from it. They would have fit into the local economies and social structures, rather than bring their original structures with them. They would not have brought any sophisticated religion, other than gods and basic customs. That would mean, for example, that the caste system is 100 per cent Indian. So would be Vedanta. Most of Hinduism would then be indigenous rather than imported. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:23, 2 August 2017 (UTC)