Talk:Genetics and archaeogenetics of South Asia/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

A message for Mr "Bodhidarma"7 et al

There is no need for searching content on websites, reaching to an own conclusion and up it on wikipedia. You are better adviced to start a blog somewhere else. I'm a proud Dravidian and I can safely say, that we are neither Australoids nor Caucasian. There are lots of claims from all kind of people and everyone is claiming something else. It is better to not touch this fruitless topic unless some VERY reliable source, like nature or science mag, publish it.--MThekkumthala (talk) 19:10, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

The question is what reliable sources say.

• If reliable sources say it, then please do not delete reference to it.
• If you think only some reliable sources say it, and other disagree, then ADD mention of the others.
• If you think the wording is too dogmatic, then change the wording.

But avoid deleting, and avoid reverting. Please?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:46, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Your opinion isn't helpful as you think. We don't deal with every opinion which got published sometime somewhere, especially when topics get controversial like this. Fact of the matter is, that there is no genetic study dedicated to identify Dravidian genes or other specific language group genes. And non of these pan-Indian studies have been published by any important journal, too. If you find such studies forward it and we can deal with it in a good way. Else, please stop pushing for different single views, which were not peer-reviewed. Thanks --MThekkumthala (talk) 21:07, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

You may be totally correct or you may not be. The thing I am pointing out is that it is already clear that you are not going to fix anything by continuing to simply revert or delete. Explain each proposed edit on this talk page first. Give your reasoning. This might seem pointless to you, but when there is obvious disagreement between editors this is really the only correct way to work. Right now are all headed in a direction where an admin could decide to block you - and you are not getting the changes you want either.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:15, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I have no objection to discuss edits on talk pages, but you are talking like, it would stop reverts etc. what will happen, when a consensus won't be reached on the talkpage or any other stage of communication?? Can you explain this to me. You are diverting the discussion again. First you talk about, how content should be handled, now you say it is about discussion. what's next? I know Indo Europeans would like to tag Dravidians according to their wishful thinkings. That has happened in the past and has reduced only recently significantly. We are not Australoids. Get over it. --MThekkumthala (talk) 09:42, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

We are not here to discuss the rights and wrongs of what is published, only how to report them accurately. Please all of you go through the steps which show you are a good faith editor. It normally does resolve such issues. Simply repeating the same deletes and reverts will not achieve anything except black marks about your names. MT, you are the proposer of changes, and you should be getting the ball rolling. I shall help by starting a new section listing the edits you made which have been reverted.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:13, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Please change your title to "Disputed edits by [User:Bodhidharma7], since it is his recent edits, which are being under fire.--MThekkumthala (talk) 13:13, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I will remove reference to any editor, but it is actually your editing which is proposing the disputed changes. That does not mean you are wrong, but it does seem a little pointless to argue.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:44, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

As far as i see, the content I have targeted was produced by this editor only recently. So this dispute is about his edits. You have been involved in this all and now you may regret it. That is not my problem.--MThekkumthala (talk) 14:48, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

All of this might or might not be correct, but will not lead to a solution.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:05, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

The coming storm...

Andrew, you know that I'm committed to accuracy and hard data, but this was such an obvious troll job. It was a coordinated, surreptitious attack conducted by certain Hindu nationalists designed to make me look bad.

You must realize that there exist many formidable political interests behind the attempt to suppress evidence of IE migration/invasion of India at all costs. These two clowns were just patsies, utterly expendable; their sole purpose was to soften me up and make me vulnerable... and they very nearly succeeded, I might add. But they won't be the last. There will be many more of these Hindutvadi-style trolls to come. And with a number of major new studies being published this year in support of IE invasion (such as Stepanov, Moorjani etc.), you can expect an all-out war.

Andrew, are you ready? I have a prediction to make: behold, the coming storm! Bodhidharma7 (talk) 02:08, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Seen it all before, and believe me WP:AGF works better than living in fear of conspiracies. (I do not mean that you should tell people to AGF, I mean you should see it as something you do yourself, even if others do not.) Please consider the way in which you say yourself above that you were repeatedly deleting something because you were "caught off guard". In other words over-reactions to people who seem to disagree with you can make you do things you would not do if you could do it all again. I am not saying it is all your fault of course. Even if there are conspiracies all over the place you'll find that you make their job much easier if you over-react, and much harder if you AGF.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:37, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Some Truth please

it is said"Recent research indicates a massive admixture event between ANI-ASI populations 3,500-1,200 years ago, which roughly corresponds with historical records documenting Indo-European expansion into the Indian subcontinent, emanating from the Kurgan cultures of the West Eurasian steppe." Unfortunately there are 0 HISTORICAL DOCUMENTED RECORDS! for I.A.M to the subcontinent as B.B. Lal have shown the alleged sites as BMAC, PGW,GGC etc. are either unique(BMAC) or simple indigenous development!(PGW,GGC) http://www.archaeologyonline.net/artifacts/19th-century-paradigms.html with no direct(i.e. Scientific) connections with the theoritical "aryans"!!! so with a smile i request the editors to change the language and make it truthful, like" Recent research indicates a massive admixture event between ANI-ASI populations 3,500-1,200 years ago, which roughly corresponds with the supposed/assumed/ proposed Indo-European expansion into the Indian subcontinent, emanating from the Kurgan cultures of the West Eurasian steppe." thanking you.Nirjhara (talk) 03:48, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the reference 5 is just an abstract from the ASHG meeting, and it was never published so far! In contrast with that the a recent study published by Metspalu et al. AJHG 2011, saying that there is no Aryan-invasion to the subcontinent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.50.24.98 (talk) 23:15, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

You're going to need a better source than some website. Otherwise, the Rig Veda is the oldest source documenting Aryan expansion into India.

Bodhidharma7 (talk) 04:57, 27 October 2011 (UTC) Here we go again! Its a clinical point to point speech on archaeology by a well veteran archaeologist for truths sake! See it carefully as its a long and up to the point one! Forget you! You say vedas have documented proof so i gladly ask bring it! I have all the vedas myself and have quite a scientific idea on them. Andrew... please judge the points and the work of the archaeologist which reflects analytical truth rather than any theory or assumptionNirjhara (talk) 07:09, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Once again Nirjara we are not here to debate what we personally think is true, but only to summarize what is published. Please make your proposals in this way, always mentioning what you want the Wikipedia article to say and what sourcing could justify it. If you do not make proposals that way then the discussion just goes in circles.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:14, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I will be much brief then and i have made the changes, i do not give any word without a base.Nirjhara (talk) 11:50, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

@Nirjhara: Stop inserting your own personal opinions into the article. Before any changes can be made, you must have peer-reviewed evidence.

Reference 5 is not a peer-reviewed evidence! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.50.24.98 (talk) 23:17, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Bodhidharma7 (talk) 13:55, 27 October 2011 (UTC) where are your evidences? I am waiting, The article is a point 2 point speech of a clinical archaeologist! The only problem seems to be that he is indian.Nirjhara (talk) 04:03, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

We've already been through this. A website does not qualify as evidence.

Bodhidharma7 (talk) 04:45, 28 October 2011 (UTC) Its about a veteran archaeologists 7-8 pages of archaeologic analysis not about the website pal cause its just a medium isnt it? I dont think you assume the speech is also a lie or got up by the site do you?Nirjhara (talk) 07:12, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I can't believe you're still insisting on this. What part of "A website does not qualify as evidence" do you not understand? Anybody can start up a website, that's why such sources are useless.

Bodhidharma7 (talk) 16:33, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Can you guys name the edit being disputed? I suggest that you should both aim to avoid conversations which go in circles.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:05, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, if others can't understand exactly what's being discussed it probably doesn't belong here. Dougweller (talk) 21:03, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks for approving the edit. Gd tms.Nirjhara (talk) 03:06, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Nirjhara, which edit?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:49, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Please discuss the disputed edits

As discussed above, I will summarize the disputed edits in order to try to get discussion going. Let's please explain our reasonings for and against. Please be on the look-out for wordings that would make everyone happy.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:18, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

1. There is a deletion

Newly published research based on the use of autosomal markers indicates that the differentiation of the population genetic structure of South Asia was the result of an Indo-European migration and subsequent admixture with the indigenous Dravidian-speaking inhabitants some 1,200 to 3,500 years ago.

First comment as an observer. The deleted material appears to be sourced. MThekkumthala has mentioned different complaints (looking at his edit summaries and comments on user talk pages) and should now clarify. At first he said this was OR, and then he has said it is mis-reporting the sources, and he has also complained that the sources are not good enough. Which is it?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:18, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

There is no such conclusion in the text. The text says only, I quote, "The historical record documents an influx of Vedic Indo-European-speaking people" they are talking about historical documents regarding this matter, not a genetic result of this migration. This is original research at the worst combining false reporting of sources and personal interpretation. I don't believe, that the source itself is not good enough. I'm just telling you, that there are too many viewpoints about the race of the Dravidians to pick just one opinion out of all those published. I wrote more on this matter earlier to clarify this issue.--MThekkumthala (talk) 15:04, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Does the text not try to relate the Vedic influx to genetics? I have not looked. Secondly, could you refer us to your earlier comments?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:13, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

No, the text only describes some theories, that there is this Vedic influx theory. Nothing comes up in the study about this in the whole text later on.--MThekkumthala (talk) 15:44, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Here is my comment on the other issue from earlier: "Fact of the matter is, that there is no genetic study dedicated to identify Dravidian genes or other specific language group genes. And non of these pan-Indian studies have been published by any important journal, too. If you find such studies forward it and we can deal with it in a good way. Else, please stop pushing for different single views, which were not peer-reviewed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MThekkumthala (talk • contribs) 15:45, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that. But couldn't this be taken as a slightly exagerrated position? For example in point 3 below you do not object to the direct quote from the Reich et al article which says "According to Reich: "ANI ancestry is significantly higher in Indo-European than Dravidian speakers, suggesting that the ancestral ASI may have spoken a Dravidian language before mixing with the ANI." ANI and ASI could be described as sets of correlated genes. I do understand that you object to going beyond that direct quote.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:57, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

that's a statement of Reich et al. It's total nonsense, but I can't say anything against it as it seems to be a direct quote from the source. and you guys appreciate this source and include it here on wikipedia. I'm totally against publishing this quotes, since there are extremely questionable, even dubious.. to say most south Indians have predominantly Indo-European in origin, since they have more ANI in them ist obviously a sick statement.. proabably with political motivation to suggest an Indo-European origin of modern Dravidians .. typical for notorious Hindutva followers to claim indigenous Indianness for Aryans. (Indigenous Aryans} just my 2 cents --MThekkumthala (talk) 16:08, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

@ MThekkumthala: You need to work on your reading comprehension skills, because the article nowhere says that south Indians are of Indo-European origin. Rather, they are primarily descended from the indigenous people of India, as was clearly stated in the article. Bodhidharma7 (talk) 16:16, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

When you look at ANI contribution in South Indian people, not tribals, they have more ANI than ASI.. what does this suggest according to you?? --MThekkumthala (talk) 17:35, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

It suggests that you don't know how to read. Please read the study again. The groups with the lowest levels of ANI ancestry, the Malas (38.8%) and the Madigas (40.6%), are Dravidian low castes. Bodhidharma7 (talk) 18:03, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

So you wanna say 40% ancestry in a South Indian Dalit is ARYAN??? --MThekkumthala (talk) 18:16, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Of course not. It would mean that they are predominantly Dravidian. Bodhidharma7 (talk) 18:20, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

you have earlier said that ANI means Aryans.. --MThekkumthala (talk) 18:23, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Math much? If someone is 60% ASI and 40% ANI, they are predominantly ASI (Dravidian). Likewise, if someone is 75% ANI and 25% ASI, they are predominantly ANI (Aryan). Bodhidharma7 (talk) 18:27, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

wait a second. you are seriously saying that 40% of a Dravidian Dalit is Aryan, aren't you?--MThekkumthala (talk) 18:31, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

It varies, depending on the population sampled. The Aryans conquered India and intermarried with Dravidian women. Most Dravidians fled south to avoid Aryan dominance. Bodhidharma7 (talk) 18:39, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

If this was true most Indians today are "predominantly Aryans" including 80% of the South Indian population. What a great joke. We Dravidians have nothing to do with Aryans at all--MThekkumthala (talk) 18:49, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

No, it doesn't mean that. In general, Dravidians have less than 50% ANI ancestry, whereas Aryans have more than 50% ANI ancestry. This means that genetically speaking, Dravidians would cluster into a separate group, being most closely related to east Asians. Aryans would also cluster into a separate group, being most related to Central Asians and Eastern Europeans. Understand now?Bodhidharma7 (talk) 18:56, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Time to show me the study to support your standpoint (less than 50% ANI for Dravidian speakers overall). --MThekkumthala (talk) 19:00, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

And no, a guy with 51% ANI is not Aryan at all. Likewise 49% ANI doesn't make him a Dravidian. Actually ANI/ASI is not connected with Aryans at all.--MThekkumthala (talk) 19:06, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, with that level of admixture, they would be considered biracial (49-51%). The study makes it clear that ANI is the non-native element, whereas ASI is the native element. Bodhidharma7 (talk) 19:10, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Show me the study, page nr, details of ANI/ASI admixtures for all South India etc --MThekkumthala (talk) 19:13, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it's listed in the study. I'll post it today when I get the chance. Bodhidharma7 (talk) 19:14, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

File:ANI-ancestry-chart.JPG

Here's the table. It might be deleted in the short-term. As you can see, those groups who are of low caste and/or Dravidian speakers have the lowest percentage of ANI ancestry. Bodhidharma7 (talk) 20:27, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

You seem to be deliberately mis-reading each other. Let me try:

• MT is questioning whether there is any simple equation of ANI with being Aryan. (And being Aryan is not the same as being from a more recent influx.)
• BD is arguing that there might not be a simple equation but there is a recognized tendency.

My summary might not yet be perfect, but you guys should be able to improve it. My point is that looking through all the posts here you are both saying things which are not directly in logical conflict with each other, but acting as if they are.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:47, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

if you need a logical conflict, we need samples of Indo-European speakers, like the Iranians and Southern Russians. They must be easily ANI >80%, since they are relatively pure Aryans.--MThekkumthala (talk) 20:55, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

In all honesty, I'm not sure what is being demanded here. It sounds like this person is arguing for the sake of argument.Bodhidharma7 (talk) 20:52, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

http://dodecad.blogspot.com/2011/05/more-zombies-ancestral-north-indians.html Here is a graph with Iranian ANI. let's hear, what Bodhidarma7 is going to say about it.--MThekkumthala (talk) 21:02, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

@MT: You're really starting to embarrass yourself here. This is what the blog says, and I only glanced at it for a few moments: Compared to the previously described Romanian Gypsies, the South Asian component in Iranians tends to be clearly tilted towards ANI. (Iranians are also an Indo-Aryan group as well, but much more so than northern Indians.)

It should also be pointed out that the northernmost Indian populations had about 70-75% ANI ancestry.

The bottom line is this: Aryans and Dravidians are distinct ethno-racial and cultural groups, but share many commonalities because of Indo-European migration and/or conquest of India some 3000 years ago.

I don't understand why this is so controversial.Bodhidharma7 (talk) 21:12, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

The total South Asian component is maybe 10-15% of their genetic makeup! We clearly detected the Aryans! --MThekkumthala (talk) 21:18, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

@ MT: Why do you even bother wasting my time? You're just getting more and more annoying with each post. Here's what Dienekes says as to your "South Asian" component, which still affirms IE conquest of India BTW:

I have long noticed that all Indo-Iranian populations possess some of the "South Asian" component. The origin of that component is difficult to ascertain, as it is a composite of "North Indian" and "South Indian" ancestral components, related to West Asians and Onge respectively.

What also seems interesting is that the "South Asian" component is closer to the "West Asian" one with respect to all other West Eurasian components...

[...]

These patterns can be well-explained, I believe, if we accept that Indo-Iranians are partially descended not only from the early Proto-Indo-Europeans of the Near East, but also from a second element that had conceivable "South Asian" affiliations. The most likely candidate for the "second element" is the population of the Bactria Margiana Archaeological Complex (BMAC). The rise and demise of the BMAC fits well with the relative shallowness of the Indo-Iranian language family and its 2nd millennium BC breakup, and has been assigned an Indo-Iranian identity on other grounds by its excavator. As climate change led to the decline and abandonment of BMAC sites, its population must have spread outward: to the Iranian plateau, the steppe, and into South Asia, reinforcing the linguistic differentiation that must have already began over the extensive territory of the complex.

http://dodecad.blogspot.com/2011/07/results-up-to-dod764-are-posted.html

Anyway, you're lucky it's just a blog, as I don't consider these channels to be viable sources of information.

Now stop wasting my time.

Bodhidharma7 (talk) 21:44, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I know your viable source for information.. YOU and your small Aryan brain!--MThekkumthala (talk) 22:02, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I knew it. I'm being trolled by Hindu nationalists. Bodhidharma7 (talk) 01:47, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not a Hindu nationalist. That would require me to support Sanskrit and indigenous Aryans. Never! I'm a proud Dravidian. All Indians should learn at least one Dravidian language compulsory, since all of us are predominantly Dravidian! And now back to topic. After seeing the eye opening results for Iranians, I've become curious about the high ANI figures for NW Indians. I was wondering how to interprete the given percentages. I've looked for complete gene analysis, which include all genetic parts ASI AND ANI.. and I found one such study. Follow this link to find all kind of admixture results of different races. The South Asian component means ANI and Onge, a Negro group, means ASI: http://www.harappadna.org/2011/04/harappa-1-90-k11-admixture-ref3/

You see the NW have a high ratio of ANI, but overall, including ASI, the share of ANI/ASI is much lower than South Indians. But we see also the Aryan gene, which is represented by the European admixture in violet. It seems also as if SW Asians genes representing Muslim invaders in green have relatively high presence in NW Indians.

Conclusion: So ANI/ASI has truely nothing to do with Aryans, but the European admixture may be the right component.--MThekkumthala (talk) 09:58, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

That may or may not be true, but the reliable sources seem to suggest that there might be a connection. I would repeat "might". So as long as wording follows sources I don't see how we can simply delete it. On the other hand a question to BD: why do we even need this given that we have so much on this in the article already which is terms of direct quotes and all the rest. Is it not a bit redundant?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:40, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, the article begins with an introduction that summarizes the available research, so it's entirely in keeping with the general tone of the article. I say we leave it in, as I can't see any reason as to why it should be removed. Bodhidharma7 (talk) 23:01, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

This is now being discussed in a new section opened by MT.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 23:45, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

2. There are a few words being inserted

According to the The Indian Genome Variation Consortium (2005), the population of the subcontinent can be divided into four morphological types: Caucasoids in the north, Mongoloids in the northeast, Australoids in the west, central, south and Negritos largely restricted to the Andaman Islands; however, these groups tend to overlap because of admixture. The majority of genetic differences among Indians appears to be distributed along caste lines, rather than along ethnic lines, although genetic differences do exist between predominantly Indo-European-speaking northern and predominantly Dravidian-speaking southern Indian populations, as was also observed by Reich in a recent 2009 study.

First comment as an observer. It should be easy to check the sources given to see if these words are the ones best representing what is there. A second remark is that the insertion is un-grammatical. It is discouraging when editors keep inserting something ungrammatical because it seems to show a lack of thoughtfulness, and throughtfulness is demanded when you know people disagree with you.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:21, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

The source says clearly west, central and south Dravidian. I'm sure you read that. It's interesting that you approved this false reporting. Now you come up with grammatical features? --MThekkumthala (talk) 15:04, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Honestly I have not bothered to check this at all, and while I am trying to moderate lightly for now, I think it might even be a good idea not to. I do not check everything in this article, and never have. I am sure that the various intelligent editors of this article can do this and can come to agreement, if you make the effort. I am just trying to make sure you talk, because the editing style being used was not working for any of you. So I would like Bodhidharma7 to respond now.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:09, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the article does say that, Andrew, although Australoids are primarily concentrated in the south. You can incorporate the changes, if it makes these two happy. Something along the lines of "in the western, central and southern regions of the country", although I don't see what difference it makes.Bodhidharma7 (talk) 16:24, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Surprising that you kept deleting it then? Anyway, whoever puts it back in, please make the grammar better.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:38, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, that's what happens when people catch you off guard by trying to push through a large number of sweeping changes without using the talk page. Bodhidharma7 (talk) 20:54, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

How should people interpret the fact that after the discussion above, MT has simply reinserted the ungrammatical version, in a block edit including the other changes he wants which are not yet finished in discussion; and BD has then once again done a block revert, even reverting this bit which he is on record as saying he only did because "caught off guard"? All of you would make yourselves look a lot more "good faith" if you would try more subtle editing?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:20, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

All I'm asking for is edit by consensus. Is that too much to ask for? Now, I notice you guys went ahead and edited the first sentence, without even drafting so much as a proposal for consideration. Now that isn't really fair, is it? Anyway, I'll let this one stand for now. --Bodhidharma7 (talk) 17:32, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

OK, the changes have been implemented. --Bodhidharma7 (talk) 17:59, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:15, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

3. Another deletion

In a major study (2009) using over 500,000 biallelic autosomal markers, Reich hypothesized that the modern Indian population was the result of admixture between two genetically divergent ancestral populations dating from the post-Holocene era. These two "reconstructed" ancient populations he termed "Ancestral South Indians" (ASI) and "Ancestral North Indians" (ANI). Ancestral South Indians largely correspond with Dravidian-speaking populations, whereas Ancestral North Indians largely correspond with Indo-European-speaking populations. According to Reich: "ANI ancestry is significantly higher in Indo-European than Dravidian speakers, suggesting that the ancestral ASI may have spoken a Dravidian language before mixing with the ANI."

First comment as an observer. The words add nothing to the direct quote already being used. Why keep them Bodhidharma7?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:23, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

"Ancestral South Indians largely correspond with Dravidian-speaking populations, whereas Ancestral North Indians largely correspond with Indo-European-speaking populations. According to Reich: "ANI ancestry is significantly higher in Indo-European than Dravidian speakers, suggesting that the ancestral ASI may have spoken a Dravidian language before mixing with the ANI."

This is total nonsense, I deleted this, because this is again false reporting of sources and lack of knowledge. Most South Indians have more ANI material than ASI, which suggests, that the original Dravidians had more ANI than ASI elements. The Aryans came much later and have nothing to do with ANI. The source doesn't state anything of this nonsense. --MThekkumthala (talk) 15:04, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, maybe to go beyond what I wrote above, the extra sentence does perhaps add something to the quote, but it goes beyond the quote in a way which looks likely to cause controversy as original thinking. It does not seem worth defending too hard Bodhidharma7?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:11, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Andrew, this person doesn't know how to read. ANI = Aryans, who migrated to India during the Bronze Age and ASI = Dravidians, the indigenous inhabitants of India. If MThekkumthala would actually take the time out to sit down and read the articles carefully, he would realize that these articles already confirm what he rightly believes. This is a ridiculous debate, one obviously based on a misunderstanding. Bodhidharma7 (talk) 16:30, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

If you are really not a Hindutvadi, then you might take a closer look at the study, before suggesting anything like ANI = Aryans and ASI = Dravidians. As I said before all South Indians have more ANI ancestry than ASI, while North Indians have EVEN MORE ANI ancestry. Only tribal people with clear Australoid features have some lesser ANI than ASI. The point you must understand is, that South Indians have MORE ANI than ASI, which would suggest, according to your own interpretation of ANI/ASI, that South Indians were predominantly Aryans! Did you get it or not? --MThekkumthala (talk) 17:15, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

You don't know how to read. ANI ancestry ranges from 39-71% in Indian populations, with Dravidian-speaking tribals/low castes on the lower end and Indo-European-speaking and/or upper castes on the high end. I'll post the chart here later and explain it to you - very slowly - so that you can understand. Although you can see it for yourself in the study, something you obviously haven't read so far.

People like you who barely understand what they are reading should not be making edits.Bodhidharma7 (talk) 18:12, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I think you are talking at cross purposes because you are not yet really willing to listen to each other. Please try reading each again with a more open mind. Both of you even seem to see that there is something silly about this discussion? Anyway, I would like to come back to my practical proposal of simply leaving in the Reich quote.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:41, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I would agree. I don't think MT has even read the Reich study to begin with, like so many others who come here to embarrass themselves by disputing its findings.Bodhidharma7 (talk) 20:58, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

OK, but we are giving clearance to remove this sentence, right? It does not seem worth a fight.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:38, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't see why it should be removed, especially since this is one of the major findings of the study. It sounds more like some people find the research disagreeable, which is why they want it removed. No, the sentence should be left alone, by way of clarification, as it indicates which ancestry is correlated with what group. Bodhidharma7 (talk) 22:56, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

The sentences around it already say what the source says. This sentence adds "colour". But colour is going to controversial here, because it arguably appears to be your personal interpretation or favoured reading. It certainly is not far from what the authors say - BUT, to repeat, we already have what the authors say.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 23:44, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not so sure about that. I don't see how it adds "color", as its chief function here is to contextualize the following quotation by summarizing the research necessary for an accurate grasp of its full significance, without having to quote reams of text and C/P charts. Bodhidharma7 (talk) 00:30, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Another possibility would be to include this passage from the 2011 study of Ghirotto, which indicates that Dravidians are the indigenous inhabitants of India, corroborating the findings of Reich:

It is generally believed that the first Indo-European speakers from West Eurasia entered India in a recent wave of migration from the Northwest and spread in the subcontinent, mixing with indigenous Dravidian speaking people. They established the hierarchical Hindu caste system and supposedly placed themselves in castes of higher rank (Cavalli-Sforza et al. 1994). Studying a non-tribal population from Andrha Pradesh, in Southern India, Bamshad et al. (2001) found that indeed the genetic affinity between Europeans and Indians is proportional to the caste rank. Individual belonging to upper castes are more similar to Europeans than to Asians, and the upper castes are significantly more similar to Europeans than are the lower castes. Moreover, a large-scale study of Y-SNPs (from 508 tribal samples and 901 caste samples) showed that lower castes are more similar to the tribal group than to the upper caste populations (Thanseem et al. 2006). For these reasons, we selected from the populations typed by Reich et al. (2009) and Xing et al. (2009) only populations who are considered to be the descendants of the earliest settlers of the continent, excluding Indo-European speakers and the upper castes (Bamshad et al. 2001).

http://www2.webmatic.it/workO/s/113/pr-1538-file_it-Ghirotto%20HB.pdf Bodhidharma7 (talk) 07:12, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I am not saying these other sources can't be used, but in this particular discussion we are talking about a sentence right in the middle of a paragraph which attempts to summarize the Reich article. Inserting remarks which can only be sourced from other articles would appear unjustified?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:26, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

The only article the comment is sourced from is the Reich article, a POV which is amply supported by the Ghirotto study. If ancestral ASI were originally Dravidian-speakers, as Reich says, than what were they racially other than Dravidians? I don't see the purpose of this objection. Maybe including both studies together would resolve this problem? Bodhidharma7 (talk) 18:07, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Another attempt to create something new.. unbelievable that people like you have so much support --MThekkumthala (talk) 18:30, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

No, it's called impartial use of as many good sources as possible, something you don't understand. Bodhidharma7 (talk) 18:50, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

• Firstly, please both of you make your posts shorter by removing any words which are only about other editors.
• Secondly coming to the point: this disputed sentence certainly looks to much like WP:SNYTH and POV pushing to me, although simply moving the sentence might help. To repeat, this sentence is inserted into a paragraph which summarizes one source. What that source says on this particular matter is well-summarized by two direct quotes. If other sources take a stronger position then you can mention those elsewhere, but trying to mix them into the paragraph on what Reich et al said would be misleading. I vote to keep it out.
• Thirdly, MT it is frustrating to see that you have re-started the edit war in an aggressive seeming way by removing two sentences now instead of just the disputed one. The other sentence you have started removing is needed because it gives basic definitions of ANI and ASI. But I guess neither of you are looking closely at what you delete and revert anyway, right?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:13, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

New study

Shared and Unique Components of Human Population Structure and Genome-Wide Signals of Positive Selection in South Asia The American Journal of Human Genetics, Volume 89, Issue 6, 731-744, 9 December 2011

Summing up, our results confirm both ancestry and temporal complexity shaping the still on-going process of genetic structuring of South Asian populations. This intricacy cannot be readily explained by the putative recent influx of Indo-Aryans alone but suggests multiple gene flows to the South Asian gene pool, both from the west and east, over a much longer time span.

Combining our results with other available genome-wide data, we show that Indian populations are characterized by two major ancestry components, one of which is spread at comparable frequency and haplotype diversity in populations of South and West Asia and the Caucasus. The second component is more restricted to South Asia and accounts for more than 50% of the ancestry in Indian populations. Haplotype diversity associated with these South Asian ancestry components is significantly higher than that of the components dominating the West Eurasian ancestry palette. Modeling of the observed haplotype diversities suggests that both Indian ancestry components are older than the purported Indo-Aryan invasion 3,500 YBP.

--MThekkumthala (talk) 13:42, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

That's old news; it has already been included in the article. Don't you read anything before you post? You're a troll. Bodhidharma7 (talk) 17:24, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

The lead paints a totally different picture. "Newly published research based on the use of autosomal markers indicates that the differentiation of the population genetic structure of South Asia was the result of an Indo-European migration and subsequent admixture with the indigenous Dravidian-speaking inhabitants some 1,200 to 3,500 years ago.[3][4][5]" I know that it is your biased work.--MThekkumthala (talk) 17:32, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

MT, it seems like your main problem with this sentence could be fixed with a wording tweak? Your main concern seems to be that one proposed migration in the literature is being treated as now proven. Am I right? I think a wording tweak is something BD is likely to find easier to discuss. For example "indicates"->"suggests" and "was"->"might be"; and then we make sure that we add something like "other theories...". (But I still ask whether the sentence is not redundant anyway.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:45, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

no, the main problem is, that none of the sources correlates the mixing of ani/asi directly with aryans. especially not the 3rd source, which I assume was used to create the propaganda text in the lead. it says only, that major mixture overlap with the timeframe of arrival of aryan arrival. it doesnt suggest that the Aryans are the ones responsible for the mixture of ANI-ASI...--MThekkumthala (talk) 00:56, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

What about this: Let's create different chronological subsections: 1) Genetics in light of the Dravidian Indus Valley Civilization
-Genesis of the Dravidian (ANI-ASI)

-IVC analysis

2) Genetic impact of the Aryans

-Aryan origins

-Contact with the Dravidians

--MThekkumthala (talk) 17:44, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

The answer is no. That would make the article even more cluttered and disorganized. This is not your personal pigsty. The article not only indicates that the majority of the recent autosomal evidence is in support of IE invasion, but is also designed in such a way as to neatly and succinctly incorporate new evidence, as needed. Bodhidharma7 (talk) 23:12, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

@ Andrew: I think the introductory sentence is quite accurate, as its purpose is to summarize most of the available evidence. The one study that does seem to contradict this is already mentioned in the main body of the text, so I don't see what the problem is here. Bodhidharma7 (talk) 23:29, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, your responses to MT are WAY out of line. Back to the subject: if the aim is to summarize the entire literature then a wording tweak does seem called for. Any wording which implies that an entire field has a strong consensus needs extremely strong sourcing and agreement between editors. A slight tweaking of words can allow for the fact that this field is not yet at the stage of having only one theory.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 23:42, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, I would disagree with your first assertion, as #1, it was both MT and his friend who initiated this round-the-clock name-calling and bullying (to which my response was rather quite mild in comparison), #2, they refused to avail themselves of the talk page and instead tried to ram through a series of ill-considered edits and #3, MT is trying to mutilate the article beyond recognition, by making it even worse. Now how do you expect me to respond?

At any rate, maybe a slight tweaking is in order here. Changing "indicates"->"suggests" and "was"->"might be" should be more than enough. Bodhidharma7 (talk) 00:11, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I checked the PP Majumder paper. It concludes this way again contradicting your ANI POV: The tribal populations of South Asia are older than the non-tribal populations, and these groups show significant genetic differences. Gene-flow into this region has been sex-biased. The contribution of central Asian populations to the Indian gene pool has been low to moderate, but has been higher in north India than in south India. --MThekkumthala (talk) 00:56, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

And that's exactly why we need a chronological order of events, as i have suggested.--MThekkumthala (talk) 00:59, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

You're illiterate. Low to moderate meaning about 39-71% ANI ancestry, as uncovered by Reich. But look at the rest of the sentence: "The contribution of central Asian populations to the Indian gene pool has been low to moderate, but has been higher in north India than in south India."

And the article isn't being mutilated to satisfy your morbid obsessions. Bodhidharma7 (talk) 01:18, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Can you read in whole sentences?? The tribal populations of South Asia are older than the non-tribal populations, and these groups show significant genetic differences. Gene-flow into this region has been sex-biased. The contribution of central Asian populations to the Indian gene pool has been low to moderate, but has been 'higher in north India than in south India. --MThekkumthala (talk) 01:28, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Are you just going to sit there and mindlessly repeat yourself over and over again, esp. after I explained how obviously wrong you are? Bodhidharma7 (talk) 01:36, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

It seems to me you are BOTH just repeating yourselves.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:23, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I went ahead and proposed a new sentence into the lead, and MT and BD have tweaked it. In the end the exercise seems to show that MT and BD actually agree more than they realize. BTW, BD you complained about me putting a new version straight into the article without first proposing it here. Consider WP:BRD. The key thing is that making proposals in the article is normally ok as long as you will not then get upset if people revert or change it. What is bad is cycle of knee jerk reverting - bad because no-one achieves their goals and article improvement stops.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:19, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

This is important!

Andrew, it should be obvious by now that these two are ideologically motivated trolls. In fact, I'm beginning to suspect that Tamilan101 is not even a real poster, but a sock puppet of MT. Please, you can't be so daft as to not see what these two are up to. He's using his sock puppet to cause the largest amount of damage, while he waits in the background until something happens to me and his sock. That's when he strikes, snatching victory from the jaws of defeat. They are here only to advance a definite agenda. You must understand that we are entirely different types personality-wise: MT is a racist and a fanatical Hindu nationalist. Just look at the racist abuse he has subjected me to; on the other hand, I have been as impartial as possible and have always bent over backwards to accommodate different POVs. I am not ideologically motivated or racist in any way, I'm just trying to get at the truth, whatever that may be.

I suggest that we stop dealing with these two until we get to the bottom of this. A sockpuppet investigation should be the order of the day. --Bodhidharma7 (talk) 06:49, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I do not see any evidence of sock puppetry on this article and in any case you are going to have trouble with any editors unless you work out how to handle disagreement better. Concerning any evidence you have for sock puppetry please take it to the appropriate forums. But on this talk page please try as much as possible to assume good faith.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:22, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Who is participating in dialogue here and who isn't? Who is bending over backwards here again? The fact that these two editors are ramming through changes and blindly supporting each other seems to suggest sock-puppetry. --Bodhidharma7 (talk) 17:37, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I would not quite describe you as bending over backwards in your editing. You could certainly be described as breaking community norms in your editing pattern (repeated knee-jerk reverts), in your ad hominem talk page style (see wp:npa), and the edits you prefer do give an impression of pushing hard for non-neutral results (see WP:NPOV). But I personally think or hope that it is partly a result of you simply reacting too quickly too everything. If only you would stop this, I wonder whether your interlocutors, who are also breaking community norms, might feel less need to do so. If not, then at least you would then be able to portray yourself as the one doing the right thing. Also, if you want to give a good impression you could start by avoiding throwing around accusations such as meta:troll and wp:sock puppet in an inaccurate way. The term you were looking for was WP:TEAM, but consider WP:TEAMWORK.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:04, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Idiotic and Offensive behaviour of an editor

Bodhidharma 7 predicts: "You must realize that there exist many formidable political interests behind the attempt to suppress evidence of IE migration/invasion of India at all costs. These two clowns were just patsies, utterly expendable; their sole purpose was to soften me up and make me vulnerable... and they very nearly succeeded, I might add. But they won't be the last. There will be many more of these Hindutvadi-style trolls to come. And with a number of major new studies being published this year in support of IE invasion (such as Stepanov, Moorjani etc.), you can expect an all-out war." May i ask the editor whom those 2 are? And what he thinks of the new AJHG papers conclusions? a civilized answer is wanted.Nirjhara (talk) 04:09, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I think the last thing this talk page needs is more discussion about editors of Wikipedia?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:26, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

If the behaviour is like a chat forum with personal attacks with going away from the main issue then some one should ask the questions or do something to stop it. Gd tms.Nirjhara (talk) 03:40, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Yep. Trouble on this page has calmed down for now.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:14, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

yes and lets hope it goes long. Gd tms.Nirjhara (talk) 03:11, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

What to do with this latest research?

It has some critical opinions on Y-DNA s like R1a and on South asian population history. Please give suggestions. http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0034288 have a good time.Nirjhara (talk) 04:25, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I think it should be mentioned. It disagrees with some other articles, but Wikipedia should report all major positions in a field.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:34, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks,please tell in which section of the article it will have its place and what should be the gist or gists?. Gd tms Nirjhara (talk) 03:56, 2 April 2012 (UTC).

Please Correct it

In a more recent session paper by Moorjani et al., a "major ANI-ASI mixture occurred in the ancestors of both northern and southern Indians 1,200-3,500 years ago, overlapping the time when Indo-European languages first began to be spoken in the subcontinent"

This research has not been peer-reviewed and so far not been published, so it is not good to cite it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.40.23.143 (talk) 16:04, 24 May 2012 (UTC) yes you have your points.Nirjhara (talk) 03:43, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

A Deliberate Misinterpretation of the 2011 Metspalu Study

Āryāvastra blocked as a sockpuppet.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Shared and Unique Components of Human Population Structure and Genome-Wide Signals of Positive Selection in South AsiaThe American Journal of Human Genetics, Volume 89, Issue 6, 731-744, 9 December 2011: Summing up, our results confirm both ancestry and temporal complexity shaping the still on-going process of genetic structuring of South Asian populations. This intricacy cannot be readily explained by the putative recent influx of Indo-Aryans alone but suggests multiple gene flows to the South Asian gene pool, both from the west and east, over a much longer time span. We highlight a few genes as candidates of positive selection in South Asia that could have implications in lipid metabolism and etiology of type 2 diabetes. Further studies on data sets without ascertainment and allele frequency biases such as sequence data will be needed to validate the signals for selection. The findings of this paper do not rule out the occurrence of Indo-Aryan migration into the subcontinent, but instead suggest that Indian ancestral components are the result of a more complex demographic history than was previously thought, that can only be explained by multiple gene flows over the course of thousands of years, in addition to Indo-Aryan expansion into the subcontinent. Therefore, I propose that the final passage be written thus: However, a 2011 study published in the American Journal of Human Genetics indicates that Indian ancestral components are the result of a more complex demographic history than was previously thought. It found that South Asia harbours two major ancestral components, one of which is spread at comparable frequency and genetic diversity in populations of South and West Asia, Middle East, Near East and the Caucasus; the other component is more restricted to South Asia. Both the ancestry components that dominate genetic variation in South Asia demonstrate much greater genetic diversity than those that predominate in West Eurasia. These findings do not rule out the possibility of Indo-Aryan migration, but suggest that the genetic affinities of both Indian ancestral components are the result of multiple gene flows over the course of thousands of years, with Indo-Aryan expansion into the subcontinent but one of many complex demographic episodes. The study authors write: Summing up, our results confirm both ancestry and temporal complexity shaping the still on-going process of genetic structuring of South Asian populations. This intricacy cannot be readily explained by the putative recent influx of Indo-Aryans alone but suggests multiple gene flows to the South Asian gene pool, both from the west and east, over a much longer time span. We highlight a few genes as candidates of positive selection in South Asia that could have implications in lipid metabolism and etiology of type 2 diabetes. Further studies on data sets without ascertainment and allele frequency biases such as sequence data will be needed to validate the signals for selection. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Āryāvastra (talk • contribs) 15:24, 23 September 2012 (UTC) This is my second revision, pared down and brought in line with the latest research: A 2011 study published in the American Journal of Human Genetics indicates that Indian ancestral components are the result of a more complex demographic history than was previously thought. According to the researchers, South Asia harbours two major ancestral components, one of which is spread at comparable frequency and genetic diversity in populations of South and West Asia, the Middle East, the Near East and the Caucasus; the other component is more restricted to South Asia. However, rather than ruling out the possibility of Indo-Aryan migration, these findings suggest that the genetic affinities of both Indian ancestral components are the result of multiple gene flows over the course of thousands of years, with Indo-Aryan expansion into the subcontinent but one of many complex demographic episodes. The study authors write: "Summing up, our results confirm both ancestry and temporal complexity shaping the still on-going process of genetic structuring of South Asian populations. This intricacy cannot be readily explained by the putative recent influx of Indo-Aryans alone but suggests multiple gene flows to the South Asian gene pool, both from the west and east, over a much longer time span." --Āryāvastra (talk) 16:10, 23 September 2012 (UTC) Copy of text for future reference, in case it is again vandalized by Hindutvadis: According to the The Indian Genome Variation Consortium (2005), the population of the subcontinent can be divided into four morphological types: Caucasoids in the north, Mongoloids in the northeast, Australoids in the western, central and southern regions of the country and Negritos largely restricted to the Andaman Islands; however, these groups tend to overlap because of admixture. The majority of genetic differences among Indians appears to be distributed along caste lines, rather than along ethnic lines, although genetic differences do exist between predominantly Indo-European-speaking northern and predominantly Dravidian-speaking southern Indian populations, as was also observed by Reich in a recent 2009 study. In 2008, The Indian Genome Variation Consortium produced another study, this time emphasizing the significant genetic differentiation which exists between Dravidian-speaking, Indo-European-speaking, Tibeto-Burman-speaking and Austro-Asiatic-speaking populations. The researchers write: "Thus, although there are no clear geographical grouping of populations, ethnicity (tribal/nontribal) and language seem to be the major determinants of genetic affinities between the populations of India. This is concordant with an earlier finding based on allele frequencies at blood group, serum protein and enzyme loci (Piazza et al. 1980)." The authors further observe that "it is contented that the Dravidian speakers, now geographically confined to southern India, were more widespread throughout India prior to the arrival of the Indo–European speakers (Thapar 1966). They, possibly after a period of social and genetic admixture with the Indo–Europeans, retreated to southern India, a hypothesis that has been supported by mitochondrial DNA analyses (Basu et al. 2003). Our results showing genetic heterogeneity among the Dravidian speakers further supports the above hypothesis. The Indo–European speakers also exhibit a similar or higher degree of genetic heterogeneity possibly because of different extents of admixture with the indigenous populations over different time periods after their entry into India. It is surprising that in spite of such a high levels of admixtures, the contemporary ethnic groups of India still exhibit high levels of genetic differentiation and substructuring." In a major study (2009) using over 500,000 biallelic autosomal markers, Reich hypothesized that the modern Indian population was the result of admixture between two genetically divergent ancestral populations dating from the post-Holocene era. These two "reconstructed" ancient populations he termed "Ancestral South Indians" (ASI) and "Ancestral North Indians" (ANI). According to Reich: "ANI ancestry is significantly higher in Indo-European than Dravidian speakers, suggesting that the ancestral ASI may have spoken a Dravidian language before mixing with the ANI." Furthermore, Reich observes: "It is tempting to assume that the population ancestral to ANI and CEU spoke 'Proto-Indo-European', which has been reconstructed as ancestral to both Sanskrit and European languages, although we cannot be certain without a date for ANI–ASI mixture." Similarly, an earlier study conducted by Watkins et al. (2008) states: "The historical record documents an influx of Vedic Indo-European-speaking immigrants into northwest India starting at least 3500 years ago. These immigrants spread southward and eastward into an existing agrarian society dominated by Dravidian speakers. With time, a more highly-structured patriarchal caste system developed. India is now broadly characterized by Indo-European (e.g. Hindi, Urdu, and Punjabi) speaking populations found in the central and northern regions and by Dravidian (e.g. Tamil, Telugu, and Kannada) speaking populations in the southern and southeastern regions. ... Although other interpretations may be possible, our data are consistent with a model in which nomadic populations from northwest and central Eurasia intercalated over millennia into an already complex, genetically diverse set of subcontinental populations. As these populations grew, mixed, and expanded, a system of social stratification likely developed in situ, spreading to the Indo-Gangetic plain, and then southward over the Deccan plateau. A strong patrilineal social structure, accompanied by a developing practice of caste endogamy, may have contributed to an asymmetric apportioning of Y-chromosome, autosomal, and to a lesser extent, mtDNA lineages." The geneticist PP Majumder (2010) has recently argued that the findings of Reich et al. (2009) concerning Indo-Aryan expansion into the Indian subcontinent are in remarkable concordance with previous research using mtDNA and Y-DNA: "Central Asian populations are supposed to have been major contributors to the Indian gene pool, particularly to the northern Indian gene pool, and the migrants had supposedly moved into India through what is now Afghanistan and Pakistan. Using mitochondrial DNA variation data collated from various studies, we have shown that populations of Central Asia and Pakistan show the lowest coefficient of genetic differentiation with the north Indian populations, a higher differentiation with the south Indian populations, and the highest with the northeast Indian populations. Northern Indian populations are genetically closer to Central Asians than populations of other geographical regions of India... . Consistent with the above findings, a recent study using over 500,000 biallelic autosomal markers has found a north to south gradient of genetic proximity of Indian populations to western Eurasians. This feature is likely related to the proportions of ancestry derived from the western Eurasian gene pool, which, as this study has shown, is greater in populations inhabiting northern India than those inhabiting southern India. In general, the Central Asian populations are genetically closer to the higher-ranking caste populations than to the middle- or lower-ranking caste populations... . Among the higher-ranking caste populations, those of northern India are, however, genetically much closer than those of southern India. Phylogenetic analysis of Y-chromosomal data collated from various sources yielded a similar picture. Higher-ranking caste populations have been the torch-bearers of the Hindu caste system that was formalized by the Indo-European immigrants. It is likely, therefore, that there was a greater proportion of admixture between higher-ranking caste populations and Indo-Europeans. The fact that high-ranked caste populations inhabiting southern India do not exhibit as much affinity with central Asian populations as those of northern India may be explained by the recent finding that the south Indian, Dravidian speaking, populations may have admixed with north Indian populations bearing ancestral signatures of the western Eurasian gene pool more recently." The author summarizes his findings by stating that: "Within India, consistent with social history, extant populations inhabiting northern regions show closer affinities with Indo-European speaking populations of central Asia that those inhabiting southern regions. Extant southern Indian populations may have been derived from early colonizers arriving from Africa along the southern exit route. The higher-ranked caste populations, who were the torch-bearers of Hindu rituals, show closer affinities with central Asian, Indo-European speaking, populations. ..." Further building on Reich et al.'s characterization of the South Asian population as historically based on admixture of ANI (Ancestral North Indian) and ASI (Ancestral South Indian) populations, a 2011 session paper by Moorjani et al. states that a "major ANI-ASI mixture occurred in the ancestors of both northern and southern Indians 1,200-3,500 years ago, overlapping the time when Indo-European languages first began to be spoken in the subcontinent." This evidence supports the idea of a significant introgression identifiable with the arrival of speakers of Indo-Aryan languages in the proto-historical period. A 2011 study published in the American Journal of Human Genetics indicates that Indian ancestral components are the result of a more complex demographic history than was previously thought. According to the researchers, South Asia harbours two major ancestral components, one of which is spread at comparable frequency and genetic diversity in populations of South and West Asia, the Middle East, the Near East and the Caucasus; the other component is more restricted to South Asia. However, rather than ruling out the possibility of Indo-Aryan migration, these findings suggest that the genetic affinities of both Indian ancestral components are the result of multiple gene flows over the course of thousands of years, with Indo-Aryan expansion into the subcontinent but one of many complex demographic episodes. The study authors write: "Summing up, our results confirm both ancestry and temporal complexity shaping the still on-going process of genetic structuring of South Asian populations. This intricacy cannot be readily explained by the putative recent influx of Indo-Aryans alone but suggests multiple gene flows to the South Asian gene pool, both from the west and east, over a much longer time span." Āryāvastra (talk) 01:07, 25 September 2012 (UTC) References

Ideologically motivated vandalism

My edits sought to undo cherry–picking of studies (Autosomal DNA variation) and researchers (Recih and Basu) in the section. Post my edits, which you reverted as mass vandalism,[1] the section incorporated a variety of studies (mtDNA variation, Y Chromosome variation) and researchers giving due weight to each. All the content added is sourced and the two links removed in the lead were dead. You'll have to give better reasons than mass vandalism to revert my edits. Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 05:11, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

You're not supposed to push edits through without consulting others. Anyway, the info you posted is practically worthless because the section is concerned with population substructure, which can only be accurately assessed using autosomal DNA. YDNA/mtDNA is already dealt with elsewhere in the article, but it's obvious you don't know how to read. --Āryāvastra (talk) 03:38, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

The section was titled Reconstructing Indian Population History till, without consulting anyone, you changed its title.[2] The section is obviously different from other section which give details on mtDNA, Y and Autosomal studies in the sense that it summarizes the conclusions from various studies on the origin on Indian sub–populations. So, your argument YDNA/mtDNA is already dealt with doesn't hold much water. The section on Autosomal studies needs to be written like the other sections. Currently, the section only contains an abstract copied from just one study (Basu et al.) which uses mtDNA and Y along with Autosomal markers to arrive at its conclusions. So, technically even that one copied paragraph is unjustified in the section because the study is not purely based on Autosomal markers. Your other argument that population substructure... can only be accurately assessed using autosomal DNA is simply wrong. Autosomal DNA has always been unpopular among migration studies on India because unlike mtDNA and Y-Chromosome it does not show a simple direct lineage of inheritance.

Coming back to my original point, which you have skirted, the section as it stands cherry–picks researchers and studies and takes it to to absurd limits. The quote from Watkins et al. (2008): The historical record documents... mtDNA lineages., which looks like the conclusion of his study is actually just the background to his paper. The section of the paper which is just written to introduce and define the scope of the research is well.. cherry–picked over the far more important/reliable sections on process/results/conclusion. The article should not pick and choose winners or POVs. Incidentally, in the previous edit wars over this article, editors from two different sides were accustomed to picking and choosing their studies and researchers and exaggerating their claims. The section as it stood after my edits, as opposed to as it stands now, incorporated many more scholars, was better referenced and presented all sides of debate, even if it wasn't perfect. Please also note, your disruption of my talk page,[3] changing the title of this section,[4] and one your comments here weren't exactly civil.

Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 06:25, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Are you illiterate "Correct Knowledge"? YDNA/mtDNA are already dealt with in the previous sections. If you have something to add, put it there. Otherwise, the section on autosomal DNA and IE migration are concerned with comprehensive population structure which can only be assessed with autosomal DNA. Adding YDNA/mtDNA here would be out of context and redundant.Āryāvastra (talk) 16:11, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

You obviously didn't read anything I wrote above. Let me try again. Autosomal DNA and The Genetics of Indo-Aryan Migration (now that you've retitled this section) are two different sections. And the section on The Genetics of Indo-Aryan Migration already uses a mix of the three studies. The problems with this section are it cherry–picks researchers, uses studies older than 1990, quotes background of research papers as the conclusion of the study, does not reflect all POVs, overemphasizes some studies etc. etc. Not that this matters much, but Autosomal is not as reliable as Y–chromosome or mtDNA studies for tracing ancestral lineage.[5][6] The reasons for this are obvious. Y-chromosome and mtDNA are uniparental, Autosomal is not. Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 18:54, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Do I have to repeat myself over and over again? The final passages serve as comprehensive reconstructions of population history, which can only be assessed using autosomal DNA. This is because autosomal DNA is biparental and therefore reflective of both male and female ancestries (total ancestry). Besides, YDNA/mtDNA have already been discussed elsewhere. Now go read a book, dunce, and save yourself from further humiliation. You're becoming tiresome. Āryāvastra (talk) 22:50, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

" which can only be assessed using autosomal DNA"... really? The 2011 study of American Journal of Human Genetics that you added to the Population reconstruction/Indo–Aryan migration section[7] refers to the previous mtDNA, Y–chromosome studies and tries to compare its results with them. It's impossible that you didn't already know this. You are obviously just being disruptive here. Leaving aside the reliability of Autosomal DNA, there is an argument to be made from WP:NPOV (neutrality) to include different types of studies and researchers. Even in the section as it stood after my edits Autosomal had the maximum length. So, I am not really arguing to have it removed. Please also read the links given in my previous post. The fact that that Autosomal DNA is biparental makes the contribution of ancestors separated by 2 generations or more probabilistic. There is a reason why mtDNA and Y-chromosome are called lineage markers. Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 18:57, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Please re-read my comments above. I'm not repeating myself over and over again. Āryāvastra (talk) 01:05, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

All your concerns regarding the unreliability of mtDNA/Y-chromosome have been adequately addressed. I've made my points on why diverse studies and researchers should be included in the Population reconstruction/Indo–Aryan migration section. If you have no other objections we can safely go back to the version of the article before you started reverting. Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 11:00, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Please try to understand each other.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:26, 20 December 2012 (UTC) A second remark: it appears some of the reverting going on is "knee jerk" to the extent that even things like formatting fixes are being reverted? That seems to show that proper care is not being taken to edit in a collegial way.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:27, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Aryan Migration

The last two paragraphs of the article mention the Indo-Aryan Migration theory. However, considering this is now considered a defunct theory of Western Nationalism and makes no mention of a study on caste or genetics it is best to remove it from the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.100.22.136 (talk) 02:24, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Latest Study by Harvard Medical School : India’s Fragmented Society Was Once a Melting Pot

The following is the link :

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v461/n7263/full/nature08365.html

The preamble of this study says following : India has been underrepresented in genome-wide surveys of human variation. We analyse 25 diverse groups in India to provide strong evidence for two ancient populations, genetically divergent, that are ancestral to most Indians today. One, the ‘Ancestral North Indians’ (ANI), is genetically close to Middle Easterners, Central Asians, and Europeans, whereas the other, the ‘Ancestral South Indians’ (ASI), is as distinct from ANI and East Asians as they are from each other. By introducing methods that can estimate ancestry without accurate ancestral populations, we show that ANI ancestry ranges from 39–71% in most Indian groups, and is higher in traditionally upper caste and Indo-European speakers. Groups with only ASI ancestry may no longer exist in mainland India. However, the indigenous Andaman Islanders are unique in being ASI-related groups without ANI ancestry. Allele frequency differences between groups in India are larger than in Europe, reflecting strong founder effects whose signatures have been maintained for thousands of years owing to endogamy. We therefore predict that there will be an excess of recessive diseases in India, which should be possible to screen and map genetically.

In recent years, genetic studies of modern Indians have provided a host of new insights into the ancient history of this sprawling nation, which harbors nearly one-sixth of the world’s population. A key finding, reported in 2009 by a team led by geneticist David Reich of Harvard Medical School in Boston, was that most Indians today are descendants of two major population groups: Ancestral North Indians (ANI), who probably migrated into the subcontinent 8000 or more years ago from the Middle East, Central Asia, and Europe; and Ancestral South Indians (ASI), who were native to the region and had been there much longer. The study also showed that these two groups began to mix at some point in the past, although just when was not clear.

Reich and his colleagues teamed up with researchers from the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research Centre for Cellular and Molecular Biology in Hyderabad, India, to take a much closer look at the genetics of modern Indians. Using both newly generated and previously published genetic data from 571 people representing 73 ethnic and language groups, 71 from India and two from Pakistan (which prior to Indian independence from British rule in 1947 was considered part of India), the team analyzed the genetic differences among the subjects using several powerful statistical methods. The analysis included nearly 500,000 genetic markers on the subjects’ DNA.

“There was a major demographic transformation in India from a region where mixture was pervasive to one in which it is very rare because of a shift to endogamy,” says lead author Priya Moorjani, a geneticist at Harvard Medical School.

The traces of this alternating pattern can be clearly seen in the genomes of modern Indians today, the study finds. For example, the percentage of ANI ancestry ranges from a high of 71% in the Pathan ethnic group of northern India to a low of 17% in the Paniya group of southwest India, meaning that the degree of ancient admixture is still measurable and significant in even the most isolated and endogamous ethnic groups.

“The most remarkable aspect of the ANI-ASI mixture is how pervasive it was, in the sense that it has left its mark on nearly every group in India,” Moorjani and her co-workers write.

What accounts for this pattern? The team points out that the period of intermarriage overlaps with a time of huge social upheavals in India, including the collapse of the ancient Indus civilization—which thrived on the Indian subcontinent between about 2600 B.C.E. and 1900 B.C.E.—as well as large-scale population movements and the rise of the Vedic religion, the predecessor of modern Hinduism. But after 1900 years ago, India’s caste system became a major cultural force, the team concludes, based on its new genetic findings and confirmed by evidence from ancient religious texts. The system rigidly defined four social classes, with the Brahmans at the top and the Sudras at the bottom. Intermarriage was not allowed between them. The Rig-Veda, India’s oldest surviving text and a founding document of ancient Hinduism, does not mention the caste system in its earliest sections, probably written some 3000 years ago; only much later are references to it found.

“The bulk of the Rig-Veda describes a society in which there is substantial movement among groups,” Moorjani points out. The four-caste system is only mentioned in an appendix written much later, she says, consistent with the genetic evidence.203.38.204.210 (talk) 04:37, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

By measuring the lengths of the chromosome segments of ANI and ASI ancestry in Indian genomes, the authors were thus able to obtain precise estimates of the age of population mixture, which they infer varied about 1,900 to 4,200 years, depending on the population analysed.

“Only a few thousand years ago was the Indian population structure vastly different from today,” says co-senior author David Reich, professor of genetics at Harvard Medical School.

“The caste system has been around for a long time but not forever. “Prior to about 4,000 years ago there was no mixture. After that, widespread mixture affected almost every group in India, even the most isolated tribal groups. And finally, endogamy set in and froze everything in place,’’ he said.

“The fact that every population in India evolved from randomly mixed populations suggests that social classifications like the caste system are not likely to have existed in the same way before the mixture,” said co-senior author Lalji Singh, currently vice-chancellor of Banaras Hindu University in Varanasi and former director of CCMB. “Thus, the present-day structure of the caste system came into being only relatively recently in Indian history.”

While the findings show that no groups in India are free of such mixture, the researchers did identify a geographic element. “Groups in the north tend to have more recent dates and southern groups have older dates, This is likely because the northern groups have multiple mixtures,” co-first author Priya Moorjani said.

But once established, the caste system became genetically effective, the researchers observed. Mixture across groups became very rare.

“An important consequence of these results is that the high incidence of genetic and population-specific diseases that is characteristic of present-day India is likely to have increased only in the last few thousand years when groups in India started following strict endogamous marriage,” Thangaraj added.203.38.204.210 (talk) 04:42, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Source 23

I am unable to access source 23, which appears to be a closed-off blog. Are such sources allowed to be used as references? --82.11.180.235 (talk) 12:10, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Request for input: Caste system in India

We are debating the possible inclusion of genetic research results in the Caste system in India page. We could use some expert input on the issues. Please join us at the talk page. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:02, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Autosomal DNA

It would be better to simplify this quote or just unquote it and paraphrase it for better understanding. Indian subcontinent and Central Asia would be appropriate terms here as they moved into Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Nepal as well from Central Asia. 117.192.217.67 (talk) 07:39, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Variation in places

This article only focuses on Aryan and Dravidian as a whole instead of breaking them up and comparing their different branches. 31.215.113.1 (talk) 08:17, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Harappan/Indus Valley DNA

Korean scientists have apparently analysed DNA from ancient Harappan/Indus Valley civilization sites. This may be of interest for possible future uniparental and genomic data [8] [9]. The Birbal Sahni Institute of Palaeosciences has also apparently been established for ancient DNA analysis of Indus Valley fossils [10]. Soupforone (talk) 14:45, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Ancient DNA has finally been extracted from fossils at a Harappan/Indus Valley site. It appears that a West Eurasian/autochthonous dichotomy existed, similar to the inferred Ancestral North Indian/Ancestral South Indian genomic components that have been observed among modern populations of the subcontinent [11]. Soupforone (talk) 15:02, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Genetics and archaeogenetics of South Asia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051030014804/http://jorde-lab.genetics.utah.edu/elibrary/Kivisild_1999.pdf to http://jorde-lab.genetics.utah.edu/elibrary/Kivisild_1999.pdf

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:21, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

A genetic chronology for the Indian Subcontinent points to heavily sex-biased dispersals

This paper was published in BMC Evolutionary Biology on 23rd March, 2017.

A genetic chronology for the Indian Subcontinent points to heavily sex-biased dispersals

Has input from the research been considered?

UB (talk) 02:32, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

A mistake in the quotation

The quotation includes a weird mistake, "outside the South Asia." Should it be corrected? Is it an incorrect quotation?--Adûnâi (talk) 16:15, 18 August 2018 (UTC)