Jump to content

Talk:Indo-Aryan migrations: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→Pre-IVC Cultures: new section
Line 131: Line 131:


=== Threaded discussion ===
=== Threaded discussion ===

== 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![[Special:Contributions/207.251.43.98|207.251.43.98]] ([[User talk:207.251.43.98|talk]]) 21:56, 22 September 2016 (UTC) Rajimus123

Revision as of 21:56, 22 September 2016

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." [1]
  • "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." [2].

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)[reply]

The timeframe is important. How many thousands of years ago?VictoriaGraysonTalk 17:42, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]

"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.VictoriaGraysonTalk 18:39, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
Tibeto-Burman groups have nothing to do with Aryan migration.VictoriaGraysonTalk 19:31, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

VictoriaGraysonTalk 19:30, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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:

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Comments

Threaded discussion

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[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Indo-Aryan_migrations&oldid=740725419"