This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 07:52, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
There is a problem in statement related first publication of Bodo word. Martin Montgomery(1838) in The history, antiquities, topography, and statistics of eastern India writes that Proper name of Kacharis is Boro.(page 549) 2409:4065:8D:ED9F:106:B716:BEBA:D92A ( talk) 05:44, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
I tried to clarify the doubts but Chaipau want to keep the article confusing and he repeatedly add confusing word. https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Bodo-Kachari_peoples&diff=954659882&oldid=954656669 Logical Man 2000 ( talk) 17:27, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
Bodo kachari is the name of a specific tribe. The macro group should be called Kachari consisting of Bodo Kachari, Dimasa Kachari, Sonowal Kachari, Sarania Kachari, Thengal Kachari, Deori, Chutia, Tripuri(Borok)etc.I suggest that the article be renamed as Kachari People. Truthfulsoldier ( talk) 08:46, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
https://web.archive.org/web/20131107225208/http://censusindia.gov.in/Tables_Published/SCST/ST%20Lists.pdf Truthfulsoldier ( talk) 12:32, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
Bodo-Kachari people means Bodo people and Bodo-Kachari people is forceful imposition of name on Dimasa, Sonowal, Thengal, Chutiya etc 2409:4065:E8B:F90B:8DCA:E2FC:BA64:47C ( talk) 20:55, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
Yes I agree I proposed to rename the article as Kachari people Truthfulsoldier ( talk) 09:20, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
Change the title to Bodo-Kachari language group 2409:4065:E8B:F90B:8DCA:E2FC:BA64:47C ( talk) 20:57, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
The word Bodo-Kachari is currently used only to address the Bodo/Boro tribe. This group of tribes is known as 'Kachari' both by the Assam Govt & the Indian Govt, similar to the word 'Tani' of Arunachal & Assam (wiki- Tani people).
The word 'Bodo' was used during the colonial era (British Raj) to address all the Kachari tribes of the region, but back then Boro/Bodo people were known as Mech-Kachari, refer to any old census of Assam for further proof. Now Mech-Kacharis are known as Bodo-Kacharis. And other Kachari groups are not considered as Bodo-Kacharis. So to avoid confusion between Bodo/Boro Kachari(a specific tribe) & Kachari(group of tribes), rename this wiki page to 'Kachari' — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tizen03 ( talk • contribs) 09:39, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
@ Tizen03: Kachari was specifically used for Boro only. Hill Kachari was used for Dimasa. Just like other groups are included in Bodo or Boro group. Similarly, Endle included other groups within Kachari. Many groups are actually not Kachari like Garo , Rabha , Koch , Chutia , Moran , Borahi etc. 2409:4065:E0A:E018:D065:15A:7B45:6EBA ( talk) 13:28, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Atleast adding the word 'Group' after the word Kachari is possible, right ? Tizen03 ( talk) 16:35, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
Bodo Kachari is a specific tribe among the macro Kachari group. There are many Kachari tribes such as Bodo Kachari, Dimasa Kachari, Sonowal Kachari, Sarania Kachari, Thengal Kachari etc. Therefore I suggest that the article should be renamed as Kachari people. Truthfulsoldier ( talk) 09:24, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
The Colonial Ethnographers identified many tribes as Bodo Kachari. But the Chutia tribe of Lakhimpur, Dhemaji, Dibrugarh etc. are very different from the Bodo tribe of BTAD. The Chutia tribe has adopted Assamese language. While the Bodos have still preserved their mother tongue. The Dimasa Kachari though closely related to Bodos, also have a different language and culture. The Dimasas, Chutia, Sonowal etc. don't identify as Bodo Kachari instead they identify with the larger Kachari group. The discussion above also makes the same point. Truthfulsoldier ( talk) 11:33, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
You are talking about citation number 19 right? Yes I get your point but You should refer to Census data and SC/ST/OBC classification by Govt. Too. Many groups don't identify as Bodo Kachari. The groups have a similar origin but have diverged overtime. We should present the Colonial classification but we should also analyse the present situation. The consensus seems to be that this article should be renamed as Kachari people, as evident from the Talk page. Truthfulsoldier ( talk) 12:27, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
https://web.archive.org/web/20131107225208/http://censusindia.gov.in/Tables_Published/SCST/ST%20Lists.pdf Truthfulsoldier ( talk) 12:32, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
It was proposed in this section that
Bodo-Kachari group be
renamed and moved to
Bodo-Kachari peoples.
result: Links:
current log •
target log
This is template {{
subst:Requested move/end}} |
Bodo-Kachari group → Bodo-Kachari peoples – Undiscussed, non-consensus move Chaipau ( talk) 17:02, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
What is this article all about ? Is this representing the "Bodo race" coined by Hodgson ? Is this representing the Boro-Garo language speakers ? Neither Bodo nor Kachari represent all the groups represented by this at present , instead Bodo , Kachari and Bodo-Kachari represent specific communities. Can somebody clarify ? KPAhmed ( talk) 03:27, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
Endle should not be used because Endle is not WP:RS. It was a book published in 1911, written by a priest and edited by P R Gurdon, a British officer. Please look at WP:RAJ. Chaipau ( talk) 16:21, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
In Bodo-Kachari_people#Origins section, Your ( @ Chaipau: ) POVs are only focused on AA. Are they even necessary here? Also, DeLancey and Jacquesson repeat the decades-old hypotheses of scholars like Kakati, they are not authorities on AA. There are other sources from genetics, linguistic phylogenetics, and archaeology to write about the origin of the group. This section would be better if the focus is more on the origin Bodo-Kacharis based on genetics, linguistics and archaeology. Northeast heritage ( talk) 04:44, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
@ Chaipau: Papers from the 30th Conference of the Southeast Asian Linguistics Society (2021) Khasian groups are considered to arrive in Northeast around 2.5kya (page=67), Figure 6: Sidwell (2020:26, map 3). Speculative model of AA dispersal with maximal maritime component, including possible chronology of movements. Northeast heritage ( talk) 21:57, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
two competing hypotheses of the origin of the Sino-Tibetan language family: the ‘northern-origin hypothesis’ and the ‘southwestern-origin hypothesis’. The northern-origin hypothesis states that the initial expansion of Sino-Tibetan languages occurred approximately 4,000–6,000 years before present (BP; taken as AD 1950) in the Yellow River basin of northern China, and that this expansion is associated with the development of the Yangshao and/or Majiayao Neolithic cultures. The southwestern-origin hypothesis states that an early expansion of Sino-Tibetan languages occurred before 9,000 years BP from a region in southwest Sichuan province in China5 or in northeast India, where a high diversity of Tibeto-Burman languages exists today.https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-019-1153-z. All models are speculative model and scholars accept the one which satisfy most parameters. My stance is with the recently published peer-reviewed papers. Northeast heritage ( talk) 04:55, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
Here we reconstruct the phylogeny of the Sino-Tibetan language family, using Bayesian computational methods applied to a larger and linguistically more diverse sample. Our results confrm previous work in fnding that the ancestral SinoTibetans frst split into Sinitic and Tibeto-Burman clades, and support the existence of key internal relationships. But we fnd that the initial divergence of this group occurred earlier than previously suggested, at approximately 8000 years before the present, coinciding with the onset of millet-based agriculture and signifcant environmental changes in the Yellow River region.https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-77404-4 . Northeast heritage ( talk) 05:34, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
Ancient-DNA analyses also suggest that early Neolithic farmers in North China did not expand into southeast China until after around 6000 BP. This discrepancy, it explains, is because
the trigger for language divergence processes was not necessarily migration or geographical separation. The inferred root age (initial divergence date) likely represents the formation of subgroups of speakers separated by distinct ecological niches or social distances, who are no longer in frequent contact and thus start to innovate their language in different ways.So you cannot infer the migration dates from the dates from this paper. All you can do is infer just upper limits (my WP:OR). Thus, in my very liberal reading---the Boro-Garo language speakers became socially distant from the Northern Naga languages about 3500BP (from the phylogeny tree), and going by what the paper is arguing, this means that the Boro-Garo languages entered the Brahmaputra valley after about 1500 BCE (this is WP:OR and we cannot use it in Wikipedia). This, in fact, agrees with DeLancey (2012: p13-14):
Most scholars suggest that the first Tibeto-Burman-speaking peoples began to enter Assam at least 3,000 years ago.So WP:SYNTH-ing DeLancey and Zhang et al (which Wikipedia does not allow), we could say the TB speakers reached the Assam valley between 1500 BCE and 1000 BCE. The AA speakers in northeast India, OTOH, have been dated to >5000 BP from genetic studies. In other words, we are left with the same scenario as earlier.
The AA speakers in northeast India, OTOH, have been dated to >5000 BP from genetic studies.. Northeast heritage ( talk) 15:47, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
A serial decrease in expansion time from east to west: 5.7 ± 0.3 Kya in Laos, 5.2 ± 0.6 in Northeast India, and 4.3 ± 0.2 in East India, suggested a late Neolithic east to west spread of the lineage O2a1‐M95 from Laos." Chaipau ( talk) 16:00, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
a late Neolithic east to west spread of the lineage O2a1‐M95 from Laos.Northeast heritage ( talk) 16:04, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
I abandon my earlier (Sidwell 2009, 2010 and elsewhere) proposed AA homeland..." Wikipedia will always go by the consensus of the current scholarship. Here we are dealing with TB languages and the TB linguists are most relevant. If they say they see AA there before TB that is what Wikipedia will report. Chaipau ( talk) 17:42, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
@ Chaipau: Your addition about language shift from AA is a hypothesis only. Genetic reports doesn't support the same. Y-chromosomal study on Baric population found homogenous Haplogroup belonging to ST family. Check this - Y chromosome haplotypes reveal prehistorical migrations to the Himalayas https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11153912/ . So, Genetics doesn't agree with their hypothesis. Kindly add this too. Northeast heritage ( talk) 09:59, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
The prevalence of The O2a-M95 in the Northeast population shows widespread presence of Austroasiatic.? Also which population ? Did anybody find O2a-M95 in Bodo-Kacharis ? Northeast heritage ( talk) 10:16, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
No, I do not agree. There were strong mother-goddess cultures in the east (Deoris, Chutiya etc.). Chaipau ( talk) 11:25, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
@ Chaipau: If you are talking about clan system, My understanding of tribal society says that Tribal society is egalitarian. Different tribes created their clan for different reasons. British accounts say that Kacharis of Darrang were very clannish people. They didn't like to mix to others but they were very much united within the community. If there was some problem between a Kachari worker and Britishers, all Kachari workers used to be against Britishers. Northeast heritage ( talk) 16:48, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
I have a hard to follow the arguments of both of you, as you constantly try to draw own conclusions from scholarly works, and use them to refute hypotheses from other disciplines (see the very start of this discussion). Actually, it's not hard to follow, but annoying. It's all about haplogroups, when the gold standard in genetic studies in the last ten years or so has been full-genome analysis (f4-statitics and derived methods). And so on. It's all speculative as long as we don't have aDNA from the area that will help us to add an important piece to the puzzle, and to understand the layering of populations and their languages in NE India. And even then we can only make inspired guesses since bones don't talk.
TB-speaker certainly did not arrive in uninhabited territory, and most probably absorbed preexisting populations that spoke non-TB languages. There are many good sources (mostly by historical linguists) that equate these populations with AA-speakers, and as long we don't have sources which explicitly say they're wrong, it's not ours to exploit the cherry orchard of e.g. genetic studies in order to support or to refute these linguistic-based models—unless reliable sources explicitly do so. Personally, I'm very skeptical of hypotheses by geneticists that equate AA-speakers with the pre-Neolithic populations of Mainland Southeast Asia and eastern South Asia (e.g. Tagore et al. 2021); isn't it more probable that the expansion of AA, TB and later also IE speakers simply erased an earlier linguistic diversity? But again, personal preferences and speculations don't matter here. – Austronesier ( talk) 19:42, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
@ Northeast heritage: why are you trying to make the "Origins" section about the language? This section is not about the origins of the language but the people. And the origins of this people is in a multilingual society that spoke Tibeto-Burman as well as Austroasiatic. Chaipau ( talk) 10:01, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
And the origins of this people is in a multilingual society that spoke Tibeto-Burman as well as Austroasiaticisn't proved. Also, Genetic doesn't support this. I am writing about Bodo-Kacharis, not Austroasiatic. They may or mayn't be part of Bodo-Kacharis. Which of my edit isn't for Bodo-Kachari ? Northeast heritage ( talk) 10:14, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
@ Chaipau: Ramirez is good for current affairs but its claims related to History can't be taken seriously e.g. Bodo-Kachari_people#cite_note-27 contradicts the fact that Dimasa (Kachari) were Hill tribe. Northeast heritage ( talk) 14:11, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
Much of colonial and post-Independence literature was—and is still often—set within an ethnic paradigm reflecting the essentialism of colonial and local elites, and which it helped to reinforce and propagate. Together with several post-Independence socioeconomic and political developments, this was one of the contributing factors to an enduring process of “ethnicisation”.So some of the ethnicization is the result of colonialism and its aftermath. The use of the term "Bodo" itself is the most glaring example, and which people are trying desperately to get away from. So I am not surprised that you would object to Ramirez.
I’m also aware that many of my local friends will be disappointed by this book, that they won’t recognise the image they have of their country, that they will feel I have devoted too many pages to details which they deem futile, and not enough to what seems most important to them. To me, however, the best way of giving back a bit of what I have received is to offer something useful, and that is the point of view of a foreigner and my passion for the hidden mazes of human societies. I will be quite happy if this book contributes, even through contradictions, to the debates on history and culture of which my friends are so fond.As can be expected this is what you'd like a true academic to write. He should be truthful to his trade (methodologies) and he should draw conclusions that purely from his methodologies and he should not be pressured by personal relationships. Chaipau ( talk) 18:14, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
Kachari-Koch peoples or Bodo-Koch peoples Northeast heritage ( talk) 05:52, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
The term bodo-kachari or bodos is used to denote a perticular tribe bodo or the boros who speaks the bodo/boro language. The other tribes of assam doesn't consider themself as bodos as they don't speak the same language nor wear the attire. Bodo/boro is a different tribe then the Dimasa, Sonowal, tiwa,deori etc. Jagat deuri ( talk) 19:29, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 07:52, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
There is a problem in statement related first publication of Bodo word. Martin Montgomery(1838) in The history, antiquities, topography, and statistics of eastern India writes that Proper name of Kacharis is Boro.(page 549) 2409:4065:8D:ED9F:106:B716:BEBA:D92A ( talk) 05:44, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
I tried to clarify the doubts but Chaipau want to keep the article confusing and he repeatedly add confusing word. https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Bodo-Kachari_peoples&diff=954659882&oldid=954656669 Logical Man 2000 ( talk) 17:27, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
Bodo kachari is the name of a specific tribe. The macro group should be called Kachari consisting of Bodo Kachari, Dimasa Kachari, Sonowal Kachari, Sarania Kachari, Thengal Kachari, Deori, Chutia, Tripuri(Borok)etc.I suggest that the article be renamed as Kachari People. Truthfulsoldier ( talk) 08:46, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
https://web.archive.org/web/20131107225208/http://censusindia.gov.in/Tables_Published/SCST/ST%20Lists.pdf Truthfulsoldier ( talk) 12:32, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
Bodo-Kachari people means Bodo people and Bodo-Kachari people is forceful imposition of name on Dimasa, Sonowal, Thengal, Chutiya etc 2409:4065:E8B:F90B:8DCA:E2FC:BA64:47C ( talk) 20:55, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
Yes I agree I proposed to rename the article as Kachari people Truthfulsoldier ( talk) 09:20, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
Change the title to Bodo-Kachari language group 2409:4065:E8B:F90B:8DCA:E2FC:BA64:47C ( talk) 20:57, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
The word Bodo-Kachari is currently used only to address the Bodo/Boro tribe. This group of tribes is known as 'Kachari' both by the Assam Govt & the Indian Govt, similar to the word 'Tani' of Arunachal & Assam (wiki- Tani people).
The word 'Bodo' was used during the colonial era (British Raj) to address all the Kachari tribes of the region, but back then Boro/Bodo people were known as Mech-Kachari, refer to any old census of Assam for further proof. Now Mech-Kacharis are known as Bodo-Kacharis. And other Kachari groups are not considered as Bodo-Kacharis. So to avoid confusion between Bodo/Boro Kachari(a specific tribe) & Kachari(group of tribes), rename this wiki page to 'Kachari' — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tizen03 ( talk • contribs) 09:39, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
@ Tizen03: Kachari was specifically used for Boro only. Hill Kachari was used for Dimasa. Just like other groups are included in Bodo or Boro group. Similarly, Endle included other groups within Kachari. Many groups are actually not Kachari like Garo , Rabha , Koch , Chutia , Moran , Borahi etc. 2409:4065:E0A:E018:D065:15A:7B45:6EBA ( talk) 13:28, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Atleast adding the word 'Group' after the word Kachari is possible, right ? Tizen03 ( talk) 16:35, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
Bodo Kachari is a specific tribe among the macro Kachari group. There are many Kachari tribes such as Bodo Kachari, Dimasa Kachari, Sonowal Kachari, Sarania Kachari, Thengal Kachari etc. Therefore I suggest that the article should be renamed as Kachari people. Truthfulsoldier ( talk) 09:24, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
The Colonial Ethnographers identified many tribes as Bodo Kachari. But the Chutia tribe of Lakhimpur, Dhemaji, Dibrugarh etc. are very different from the Bodo tribe of BTAD. The Chutia tribe has adopted Assamese language. While the Bodos have still preserved their mother tongue. The Dimasa Kachari though closely related to Bodos, also have a different language and culture. The Dimasas, Chutia, Sonowal etc. don't identify as Bodo Kachari instead they identify with the larger Kachari group. The discussion above also makes the same point. Truthfulsoldier ( talk) 11:33, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
You are talking about citation number 19 right? Yes I get your point but You should refer to Census data and SC/ST/OBC classification by Govt. Too. Many groups don't identify as Bodo Kachari. The groups have a similar origin but have diverged overtime. We should present the Colonial classification but we should also analyse the present situation. The consensus seems to be that this article should be renamed as Kachari people, as evident from the Talk page. Truthfulsoldier ( talk) 12:27, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
https://web.archive.org/web/20131107225208/http://censusindia.gov.in/Tables_Published/SCST/ST%20Lists.pdf Truthfulsoldier ( talk) 12:32, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
It was proposed in this section that
Bodo-Kachari group be
renamed and moved to
Bodo-Kachari peoples.
result: Links:
current log •
target log
This is template {{
subst:Requested move/end}} |
Bodo-Kachari group → Bodo-Kachari peoples – Undiscussed, non-consensus move Chaipau ( talk) 17:02, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
What is this article all about ? Is this representing the "Bodo race" coined by Hodgson ? Is this representing the Boro-Garo language speakers ? Neither Bodo nor Kachari represent all the groups represented by this at present , instead Bodo , Kachari and Bodo-Kachari represent specific communities. Can somebody clarify ? KPAhmed ( talk) 03:27, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
Endle should not be used because Endle is not WP:RS. It was a book published in 1911, written by a priest and edited by P R Gurdon, a British officer. Please look at WP:RAJ. Chaipau ( talk) 16:21, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
In Bodo-Kachari_people#Origins section, Your ( @ Chaipau: ) POVs are only focused on AA. Are they even necessary here? Also, DeLancey and Jacquesson repeat the decades-old hypotheses of scholars like Kakati, they are not authorities on AA. There are other sources from genetics, linguistic phylogenetics, and archaeology to write about the origin of the group. This section would be better if the focus is more on the origin Bodo-Kacharis based on genetics, linguistics and archaeology. Northeast heritage ( talk) 04:44, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
@ Chaipau: Papers from the 30th Conference of the Southeast Asian Linguistics Society (2021) Khasian groups are considered to arrive in Northeast around 2.5kya (page=67), Figure 6: Sidwell (2020:26, map 3). Speculative model of AA dispersal with maximal maritime component, including possible chronology of movements. Northeast heritage ( talk) 21:57, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
two competing hypotheses of the origin of the Sino-Tibetan language family: the ‘northern-origin hypothesis’ and the ‘southwestern-origin hypothesis’. The northern-origin hypothesis states that the initial expansion of Sino-Tibetan languages occurred approximately 4,000–6,000 years before present (BP; taken as AD 1950) in the Yellow River basin of northern China, and that this expansion is associated with the development of the Yangshao and/or Majiayao Neolithic cultures. The southwestern-origin hypothesis states that an early expansion of Sino-Tibetan languages occurred before 9,000 years BP from a region in southwest Sichuan province in China5 or in northeast India, where a high diversity of Tibeto-Burman languages exists today.https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-019-1153-z. All models are speculative model and scholars accept the one which satisfy most parameters. My stance is with the recently published peer-reviewed papers. Northeast heritage ( talk) 04:55, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
Here we reconstruct the phylogeny of the Sino-Tibetan language family, using Bayesian computational methods applied to a larger and linguistically more diverse sample. Our results confrm previous work in fnding that the ancestral SinoTibetans frst split into Sinitic and Tibeto-Burman clades, and support the existence of key internal relationships. But we fnd that the initial divergence of this group occurred earlier than previously suggested, at approximately 8000 years before the present, coinciding with the onset of millet-based agriculture and signifcant environmental changes in the Yellow River region.https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-77404-4 . Northeast heritage ( talk) 05:34, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
Ancient-DNA analyses also suggest that early Neolithic farmers in North China did not expand into southeast China until after around 6000 BP. This discrepancy, it explains, is because
the trigger for language divergence processes was not necessarily migration or geographical separation. The inferred root age (initial divergence date) likely represents the formation of subgroups of speakers separated by distinct ecological niches or social distances, who are no longer in frequent contact and thus start to innovate their language in different ways.So you cannot infer the migration dates from the dates from this paper. All you can do is infer just upper limits (my WP:OR). Thus, in my very liberal reading---the Boro-Garo language speakers became socially distant from the Northern Naga languages about 3500BP (from the phylogeny tree), and going by what the paper is arguing, this means that the Boro-Garo languages entered the Brahmaputra valley after about 1500 BCE (this is WP:OR and we cannot use it in Wikipedia). This, in fact, agrees with DeLancey (2012: p13-14):
Most scholars suggest that the first Tibeto-Burman-speaking peoples began to enter Assam at least 3,000 years ago.So WP:SYNTH-ing DeLancey and Zhang et al (which Wikipedia does not allow), we could say the TB speakers reached the Assam valley between 1500 BCE and 1000 BCE. The AA speakers in northeast India, OTOH, have been dated to >5000 BP from genetic studies. In other words, we are left with the same scenario as earlier.
The AA speakers in northeast India, OTOH, have been dated to >5000 BP from genetic studies.. Northeast heritage ( talk) 15:47, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
A serial decrease in expansion time from east to west: 5.7 ± 0.3 Kya in Laos, 5.2 ± 0.6 in Northeast India, and 4.3 ± 0.2 in East India, suggested a late Neolithic east to west spread of the lineage O2a1‐M95 from Laos." Chaipau ( talk) 16:00, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
a late Neolithic east to west spread of the lineage O2a1‐M95 from Laos.Northeast heritage ( talk) 16:04, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
I abandon my earlier (Sidwell 2009, 2010 and elsewhere) proposed AA homeland..." Wikipedia will always go by the consensus of the current scholarship. Here we are dealing with TB languages and the TB linguists are most relevant. If they say they see AA there before TB that is what Wikipedia will report. Chaipau ( talk) 17:42, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
@ Chaipau: Your addition about language shift from AA is a hypothesis only. Genetic reports doesn't support the same. Y-chromosomal study on Baric population found homogenous Haplogroup belonging to ST family. Check this - Y chromosome haplotypes reveal prehistorical migrations to the Himalayas https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11153912/ . So, Genetics doesn't agree with their hypothesis. Kindly add this too. Northeast heritage ( talk) 09:59, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
The prevalence of The O2a-M95 in the Northeast population shows widespread presence of Austroasiatic.? Also which population ? Did anybody find O2a-M95 in Bodo-Kacharis ? Northeast heritage ( talk) 10:16, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
No, I do not agree. There were strong mother-goddess cultures in the east (Deoris, Chutiya etc.). Chaipau ( talk) 11:25, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
@ Chaipau: If you are talking about clan system, My understanding of tribal society says that Tribal society is egalitarian. Different tribes created their clan for different reasons. British accounts say that Kacharis of Darrang were very clannish people. They didn't like to mix to others but they were very much united within the community. If there was some problem between a Kachari worker and Britishers, all Kachari workers used to be against Britishers. Northeast heritage ( talk) 16:48, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
I have a hard to follow the arguments of both of you, as you constantly try to draw own conclusions from scholarly works, and use them to refute hypotheses from other disciplines (see the very start of this discussion). Actually, it's not hard to follow, but annoying. It's all about haplogroups, when the gold standard in genetic studies in the last ten years or so has been full-genome analysis (f4-statitics and derived methods). And so on. It's all speculative as long as we don't have aDNA from the area that will help us to add an important piece to the puzzle, and to understand the layering of populations and their languages in NE India. And even then we can only make inspired guesses since bones don't talk.
TB-speaker certainly did not arrive in uninhabited territory, and most probably absorbed preexisting populations that spoke non-TB languages. There are many good sources (mostly by historical linguists) that equate these populations with AA-speakers, and as long we don't have sources which explicitly say they're wrong, it's not ours to exploit the cherry orchard of e.g. genetic studies in order to support or to refute these linguistic-based models—unless reliable sources explicitly do so. Personally, I'm very skeptical of hypotheses by geneticists that equate AA-speakers with the pre-Neolithic populations of Mainland Southeast Asia and eastern South Asia (e.g. Tagore et al. 2021); isn't it more probable that the expansion of AA, TB and later also IE speakers simply erased an earlier linguistic diversity? But again, personal preferences and speculations don't matter here. – Austronesier ( talk) 19:42, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
@ Northeast heritage: why are you trying to make the "Origins" section about the language? This section is not about the origins of the language but the people. And the origins of this people is in a multilingual society that spoke Tibeto-Burman as well as Austroasiatic. Chaipau ( talk) 10:01, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
And the origins of this people is in a multilingual society that spoke Tibeto-Burman as well as Austroasiaticisn't proved. Also, Genetic doesn't support this. I am writing about Bodo-Kacharis, not Austroasiatic. They may or mayn't be part of Bodo-Kacharis. Which of my edit isn't for Bodo-Kachari ? Northeast heritage ( talk) 10:14, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
@ Chaipau: Ramirez is good for current affairs but its claims related to History can't be taken seriously e.g. Bodo-Kachari_people#cite_note-27 contradicts the fact that Dimasa (Kachari) were Hill tribe. Northeast heritage ( talk) 14:11, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
Much of colonial and post-Independence literature was—and is still often—set within an ethnic paradigm reflecting the essentialism of colonial and local elites, and which it helped to reinforce and propagate. Together with several post-Independence socioeconomic and political developments, this was one of the contributing factors to an enduring process of “ethnicisation”.So some of the ethnicization is the result of colonialism and its aftermath. The use of the term "Bodo" itself is the most glaring example, and which people are trying desperately to get away from. So I am not surprised that you would object to Ramirez.
I’m also aware that many of my local friends will be disappointed by this book, that they won’t recognise the image they have of their country, that they will feel I have devoted too many pages to details which they deem futile, and not enough to what seems most important to them. To me, however, the best way of giving back a bit of what I have received is to offer something useful, and that is the point of view of a foreigner and my passion for the hidden mazes of human societies. I will be quite happy if this book contributes, even through contradictions, to the debates on history and culture of which my friends are so fond.As can be expected this is what you'd like a true academic to write. He should be truthful to his trade (methodologies) and he should draw conclusions that purely from his methodologies and he should not be pressured by personal relationships. Chaipau ( talk) 18:14, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
Kachari-Koch peoples or Bodo-Koch peoples Northeast heritage ( talk) 05:52, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
The term bodo-kachari or bodos is used to denote a perticular tribe bodo or the boros who speaks the bodo/boro language. The other tribes of assam doesn't consider themself as bodos as they don't speak the same language nor wear the attire. Bodo/boro is a different tribe then the Dimasa, Sonowal, tiwa,deori etc. Jagat deuri ( talk) 19:29, 18 October 2022 (UTC)