![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
@ Pebble101: yo've twice diff diff removed sourced info, and replaced it with other sourced info. There are several problems with this removal/insertion:
Best regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 04:17, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
References
Kivisild1999
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Chaubey2008
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).biomedcentral.com
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).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)
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 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)
|
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)
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)
JJ, please eliminate outdated genetic studies from before 2003. VictoriaGrayson Talk 14:57, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
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)
@
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)
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)
Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 07:39, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
@ David Eppstein: this edit removed
References
{{
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)
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) describes three scenarios regarding the migrations that brought together the two groups. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 16:26, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
"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]." [1]
Forgive my ignorance, but what's dasis? And yes, it is what Moorjani clearly states:
She also writes, regarding the third scenario:
But she also writes:
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)
References
- Kautilya3 ( talk) 09:08, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
"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."
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)
The following text was removed:
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
Vic placed the following info, from Sahoo (2006), prominently in the first section on genetics:
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)
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, 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)
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. [1]
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.” [1] -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 18:39, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
References
Off-topic
|
---|
|
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)
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)
There are some interesting additional comments to Reich et al. (2009):
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)
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:
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)
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)
JJ you are on the right track. VictoriaGrayson Talk 15:33, 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)
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)
@ 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)
Rob Mitchum (2011), Lactose Tolerance in the Indian Dairyland:
Dravidian Harappans? Way younger than 40,000 years. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 10:54, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
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):
Their conclusions hang on the fourth quote: "if ... then." Unfortunately for them, this is what Underhill (2014) writes:
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).
Some other related articles:
Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 05:12, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
I've checked Metspalu 2011 again.This is what they say, regarding the 12,500 years (emphasis mine):
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)
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)
This is an interesting comment:
Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 20:43, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
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)
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:
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).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 14:10, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
This statement may be true, but Tibeto-Burman groups have nothing to do with Aryan migration. VictoriaGrayson Talk 18:39, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
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)
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 18:31, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Here's new stuff for contemplation, Lazaridis et al. (2016):
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)
@ Joshua Jonathan: I have added additional information from the study here.
Regrading ANI
Regrading ASI and ANI
Conclusions regrading ANI as admixture.
Steppe-related ancestry in South Asia.
Steppe-related ancestry % in study samples from supplementary.
Lazaridis et al (2016) and Lazaridies et al (2016) supplementary information. Ilber8000 ( talk) 18:31, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
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)
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)
@ 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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
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)
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)
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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:41, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
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!
[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
References
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
"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." [1].
References
"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."
Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 05:16, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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.
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)
@ 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)
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)
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.
Cite error: There are <ref group=web>
tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=web}}
template (see the
help page).
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
@ Pebble101: yo've twice diff diff removed sourced info, and replaced it with other sourced info. There are several problems with this removal/insertion:
Best regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 04:17, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
References
Kivisild1999
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Chaubey2008
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).biomedcentral.com
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).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)
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 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)
|
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)
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)
JJ, please eliminate outdated genetic studies from before 2003. VictoriaGrayson Talk 14:57, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
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)
@
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)
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)
Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 07:39, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
@ David Eppstein: this edit removed
References
{{
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)
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) describes three scenarios regarding the migrations that brought together the two groups. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 16:26, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
"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]." [1]
Forgive my ignorance, but what's dasis? And yes, it is what Moorjani clearly states:
She also writes, regarding the third scenario:
But she also writes:
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)
References
- Kautilya3 ( talk) 09:08, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
"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."
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)
The following text was removed:
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
Vic placed the following info, from Sahoo (2006), prominently in the first section on genetics:
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)
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, 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)
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. [1]
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.” [1] -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 18:39, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
References
Off-topic
|
---|
|
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)
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)
There are some interesting additional comments to Reich et al. (2009):
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)
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:
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)
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)
JJ you are on the right track. VictoriaGrayson Talk 15:33, 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)
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)
@ 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)
Rob Mitchum (2011), Lactose Tolerance in the Indian Dairyland:
Dravidian Harappans? Way younger than 40,000 years. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 10:54, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
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):
Their conclusions hang on the fourth quote: "if ... then." Unfortunately for them, this is what Underhill (2014) writes:
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).
Some other related articles:
Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 05:12, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
I've checked Metspalu 2011 again.This is what they say, regarding the 12,500 years (emphasis mine):
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)
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)
This is an interesting comment:
Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 20:43, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
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)
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:
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).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 14:10, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
This statement may be true, but Tibeto-Burman groups have nothing to do with Aryan migration. VictoriaGrayson Talk 18:39, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
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)
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 18:31, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Here's new stuff for contemplation, Lazaridis et al. (2016):
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)
@ Joshua Jonathan: I have added additional information from the study here.
Regrading ANI
Regrading ASI and ANI
Conclusions regrading ANI as admixture.
Steppe-related ancestry in South Asia.
Steppe-related ancestry % in study samples from supplementary.
Lazaridis et al (2016) and Lazaridies et al (2016) supplementary information. Ilber8000 ( talk) 18:31, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
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)
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)
@ 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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
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)
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)
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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:41, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
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!
[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
References
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
"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." [1].
References
"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."
Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 05:16, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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.
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)
@ 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)
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)
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.
Cite error: There are <ref group=web>
tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=web}}
template (see the
help page).