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)