Talk:Bodo–Kachari people

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Origin of Different Tribes with common origin.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:52, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Hodgson wasn't first person to publish Bodo

There is a problem in statement related first publication of Bodo word. Martin Montgomery(1838) in The history, antiquities, topography, and statistics of eastern India writes that Proper name of Kacharis is Boro.(page 549) 2409:4065:8D:ED9F:106:B716:BEBA:D92A (talk) 05:44, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Content removed by Chaipau

I tried to clarify the doubts but Chaipau want to keep the article confusing and he repeatedly add confusing word. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bodo-Kachari_peoples&diff=954659882&oldid=954656669 Logical Man 2000 (talk) 17:27, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

@Logical Man 2000: you are trying to define Bodo as only Boro. This is not correct. There is enough evidence to show that Hogdson called the "Mech and Kachari" as Bodo. This is clearly mentioned by Grierson and accepted by other authors. But all those who are called Kachari do not accept this appellation. The example is Dimasa, as Bathari has reported. The Boro are a dominant ethnic group and the smaller ethnic communities resent this. So Wikipedia cannot support your Boro-centric non-WP:NPOV definitions and edits. Chaipau (talk) 17:55, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Dimasa were never Boro. Hodgson use Bodo for Boro people , this is the reason Dimasa don't like Bodo umbrella term. Bodo is just linguistic umbrella term. You're making things complicated. Etymology deals with history of the word. So, You've to write how this term originate and become umbrella term. It's simple Logical Man 2000 (talk) 18:32, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

paggal panti 103.184.170.209 (talk) 11:16, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Bodo kachari is the name of a specific tribe. The macro group should be called Kachari consisting of Bodo Kachari, Dimasa Kachari, Sonowal Kachari, Sarania Kachari, Thengal Kachari, Deori, Chutia, Tripuri(Borok)etc.I suggest that the article be renamed as Kachari People. Truthfulsoldier (talk) 08:46, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

https://web.archive.org/web/20131107225208/http://censusindia.gov.in/Tables_Published/SCST/ST%20Lists.pdf Truthfulsoldier (talk) 12:32, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Chutiya, Dimasa aren't Bodo

Bodo-Kachari people means Bodo people and Bodo-Kachari people is forceful imposition of name on Dimasa, Sonowal, Thengal, Chutiya etc 2409:4065:E8B:F90B:8DCA:E2FC:BA64:47C (talk) 20:55, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes I agree I proposed to rename the article as Kachari people Truthfulsoldier (talk) 09:20, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Change the title

Change the title to Bodo-Kachari language group 2409:4065:E8B:F90B:8DCA:E2FC:BA64:47C (talk) 20:57, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Change the title of the page from 'Bodo-Kachari' to 'Kachari People'.

The word Bodo-Kachari is currently used only to address the Bodo/Boro tribe. This group of tribes is known as 'Kachari' both by the Assam Govt & the Indian Govt, similar to the word 'Tani' of Arunachal & Assam (wiki- Tani people).

The word 'Bodo' was used during the colonial era (British Raj) to address all the Kachari tribes of the region, but back then Boro/Bodo people were known as Mech-Kachari, refer to any old census of Assam for further proof. Now Mech-Kacharis are known as Bodo-Kacharis. And other Kachari groups are not considered as Bodo-Kacharis. So to avoid confusion between Bodo/Boro Kachari(a specific tribe) & Kachari(group of tribes), rename this wiki page to 'Kachari' — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tizen03 (talk • contribs) 09:39, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

• @Tizen03: I partially agree with you, but this group of peoples is defined as those speaking the Boro-Garo languages. That is why the hyphenated name. In the literature you do find the use of "Bodo" to denote this super-group too. Look at Chatterjee's Kirata-jana-kriti. That is why we have a hyphenated name here. Chaipau (talk) 10:58, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
• Furthermore, The Twipra people are not historically called Kachari. But I am open to suggestions Chaipau (talk) 11:31, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
• Also, the Boro people are called either "Boro" or "Borokachari" in Census. Chaipau (talk) 12:18, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Bodo-Kachari or Bodo supergroup isn't name of people. It is an umbrella name for different ethnic group. Remove the suffix "peoples" 2409:4065:E0A:E018:5006:5ED5:9521:41C7 (talk) 12:47, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

I do agree that the term was used to address all the Kachari tribes, but it was during the colonial era when the Boro/Bodo tribe was known as Mech-Kachari. Currently Bodo-Kachari only means the Bodo/Boro tribe. No other Kachari tribe would identity as a Bodo-Kachari except for the Bodos/Boros. If both Assam & Indian Govt use the term Kachari, there's no problem in renaming the page into that. Moreover the word "Bodo" as an alternative name also exist in the article. So renaming the title of this page won't harm anything. There's another identical page here in Wikipedia by the name "Boro people", which a few months earlier too was "Bodo Tribe". Tizen03 (talk) 13:08, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

@Tizen03: Though I agree, renaming the article "Kachari peoples" would mean a different scope—because we cannot possibly include Garo people and Twipra people in Kachari, because they were never known as Kachari. "Kachari peoples" then would mean only those peoples in Assam, since it is only in Assam we have "Kachari" peoples. I do not think there exists any other Kachari people in anywhere else. Chaipau (talk) 13:59, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Furthermore, we should consider only "Kachari peoples" not 'Kachari people", because there are different communities here. We should not use "tribe" because irrespective of its use in the Indian constitution, anthropologically it is a loaded and controversial term. Chaipau (talk) 14:07, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

@Tizen03: Kachari was specifically used for Boro only. Hill Kachari was used for Dimasa. Just like other groups are included in Bodo or Boro group. Similarly, Endle included other groups within Kachari. Many groups are actually not Kachari like Garo , Rabha , Koch , Chutia , Moran , Borahi etc. 2409:4065:E0A:E018:D065:15A:7B45:6EBA (talk) 13:28, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Atleast adding the word 'Group' after the word Kachari is possible, right ? Tizen03 (talk) 16:35, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

@Tizen03: we are using "peoples" here instead of "people" — much in the same way it is used in other articles (e.g. Indo-Aryan peoples, Dravidian peoples etc.). Chaipau (talk) 19:50, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Bodo Kachari is a specific tribe among the macro Kachari group. There are many Kachari tribes such as Bodo Kachari, Dimasa Kachari, Sonowal Kachari, Sarania Kachari, Thengal Kachari etc. Therefore I suggest that the article should be renamed as Kachari people. Truthfulsoldier (talk) 09:24, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

@Truthfulsoldier: The specific tribe is Boro people. Peoples, such as the Chutia people are often called "Bodo" (Shin 2020). But I agree, the title should have "peoples" not "people". Chaipau (talk) 11:16, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

The Colonial Ethnographers identified many tribes as Bodo Kachari. But the Chutia tribe of Lakhimpur, Dhemaji, Dibrugarh etc. are very different from the Bodo tribe of BTAD. The Chutia tribe has adopted Assamese language. While the Bodos have still preserved their mother tongue. The Dimasa Kachari though closely related to Bodos, also have a different language and culture. The Dimasas, Chutia, Sonowal etc. don't identify as Bodo Kachari instead they identify with the larger Kachari group. The discussion above also makes the same point. Truthfulsoldier (talk) 11:33, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes. But look here: Bodo-Kachari_people#cite_note-jacobnote-4. Chaipau (talk) 11:55, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

You are talking about citation number 19 right? Yes I get your point but You should refer to Census data and SC/ST/OBC classification by Govt. Too. Many groups don't identify as Bodo Kachari. The groups have a similar origin but have diverged overtime. We should present the Colonial classification but we should also analyse the present situation. The consensus seems to be that this article should be renamed as Kachari people, as evident from the Talk page. Truthfulsoldier (talk) 12:27, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

https://web.archive.org/web/20131107225208/http://censusindia.gov.in/Tables_Published/SCST/ST%20Lists.pdf Truthfulsoldier (talk) 12:32, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 11 August 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

---

Bodo-Kachari group → Bodo-Kachari peoples – Undiscussed, non-consensus move Chaipau (talk) 17:02, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:38, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

• @Chaipau and Hachengsa: queried move request Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:40, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
• Bodo-Kachari group (currently a redirect to Bodo–Kachari people) → Bodo-Kachari peoples (currently a redirect instead to Bodo–Kachari people) – Undiscussed, non-consensus move Chaipau (talk) 17:02, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
• "Bodo-Kachari peoples" page is unncessary. There is no such thing. Many times ethnic groups like Dimasa people are misunderstood to be Bodo-Kachari or Boro people. Agains Bodo-Kachari is used as the name of a group which inclue many tribes. So, "Bodo-Kachari group" is better name than "Bodo-Kachari peoples". This name reflect the content of the page. Hachengsa (talk) 17:40, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
• Census of India also says that Boro , Boro kacharis and Boro-Kacharis means same thing. https://censusindia.gov.in/Tables_Published/SCST/ST%20Lists.pdf , http://darrang.nic.in/People.htm , and Boros have used the name to claim Dimasa kingdom, Koch kingdom etc. "Bodo-Kachari peoples" isn't suitable for modern use. It's only for anthropology and linguistics. Linguists have also changed the Bodo group to Boro-Garo. Hachengsa (talk) 17:55, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
• OPPOSE the request to revert the move. Hachengsa (talk) 17:55, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Ambiguous Bodo-Kachari

What is this article all about ? Is this representing the "Bodo race" coined by Hodgson ? Is this representing the Boro-Garo language speakers ? Neither Bodo nor Kachari represent all the groups represented by this at present , instead Bodo , Kachari and Bodo-Kachari represent specific communities. Can somebody clarify ? KPAhmed (talk) 03:27, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Endle

Endle should not be used because Endle is not WP:RS. It was a book published in 1911, written by a priest and edited by P R Gurdon, a British officer. Please look at WP:RAJ. Chaipau (talk) 16:21, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Origin

In Bodo-Kachari_people#Origins section, Your ( @Chaipau: ) POVs are only focused on AA. Are they even necessary here? Also, DeLancey and Jacquesson repeat the decades-old hypotheses of scholars like Kakati, they are not authorities on AA. There are other sources from genetics, linguistic phylogenetics, and archaeology to write about the origin of the group. This section would be better if the focus is more on the origin Bodo-Kacharis based on genetics, linguistics and archaeology. Northeast heritage (talk) 04:44, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

@Northeast heritage: this section is not focused on AA but the Bodo-Kachari peoples. That AA is one of the constituents of the crop of current Bodo-Kachari peoples is not my POV. I have quoted linguists exclusively here, but I could quote others too. The presence of AA is supported by all the three branches of discipline that you mention—linguistics, genetics and archaeology (and anthropology). Among linguists DeLancey, Jacquesson, van Dreim, and Burling are pretty much the entire stellar linguistics working in the Boro-Garo area and they agree that they cannot account for Boro-Garo without invoking AA, or some other linguistics group. One of the biggest hint is that—as Burling and now DeLancey has pointed out—Boro-Garo with its heavily simplified grammar is almost like a creolized Tibeto-Burman, and the analogy they have given is of Nagamese. So the evidence of the contact is not based on AA, but the internal evidence from Boro-Garo and the rest of the Tibeto-Burman languages. DeLancey and Burling do not need to be AA experts to make this claim.

Please read DeLancey's 2012 paper with an open mind. He is making new arguments and opposing older ones (like the presence of Dravidian which older ethnologists like Riesley and others had provided). He uses Kakati critically and accepts Kakakti's arguments only on merit. The vision which Hodgson had—of the Mech/Kachari, who he called the Bodo, being at the center of a circle of ethnicities—is a model which is increasingly untenable, as Jaquesson has pointed out. But Hodgson's views are not just decades but centuries old. Almost 200 years old.

Chaipau (talk) 10:37, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

@Chaipau: I am very much open-minded to the current understanding of the East-Asian expansions. The presence of AA in the Boro-Garo group (specifically the western Boro-Garo group) should be highlighted as it's a fact. As DeLancey has already mentioned that the popular belief about pre-existing AA is an assumption and it needs to be re-established. When DeLancey 2012 and Van Driem 2007 were writing their papers then there was no clear picture of AA expansion and more recent data were not available to them. Presently there is a clear picture of AA expansion. Earlier it was assumed that AA groups migrated from southeast Asia through Assam, and Khasic groups are remnants of that migration. But it is proved to be a wrong hypothesis as of now it is known that Munda groups migrated through sea routes around 4kya and Khasic groups separated from Palaungic groups around 2kya(?). Also, there is a difference between the Baric group (Boro-Garo-Konyak) and other Tibetic groups of Himalayan region because the Baric group lack D-haplogroup which is prominent in Tibetic group. Baric group separated from Sinetic group much before the Shang dynasty. I personally prefer well-known over assumptions. Northeast heritage (talk) 15:02, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

@Northeast heritage: could you please provide the reference where you find Khasic group reaching Northeast ~2kya? This would be amazing and put a lot of theories on its head and create more problems than it would solve. Chaipau (talk) 16:19, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

@Chaipau: I am unable to find exact source. Nagaraja 2013 in his computational phylogenetics finds that Khasic languages diverge around 2kya. I am unable to access some papers. This (Proto-Khasian and Khasi-Palaungic) paper may help but I don't have access. Northeast heritage (talk) 20:38, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Please provide the proper citation or link when you get it. Thanks! Chaipau (talk) 20:41, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Sure. Northeast heritage (talk) 20:50, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

@Chaipau: Papers from the 30th Conference of the Southeast Asian Linguistics Society (2021) Khasian groups are considered to arrive in Northeast around 2.5kya (page=67), Figure 6: Sidwell (2020:26, map 3). Speculative model of AA dispersal with maximal maritime component, including possible chronology of movements. Northeast heritage (talk) 21:57, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

This is a speculative model from Sidwell. Have other linguists accepted it? Genetics point to presence of AA in northeast India about 5kya. How does it reconcile this discrepancy? Chaipau (talk) 09:40, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

This paper is very recent, I am unable to access older papers, So, I can't say how many scholars accepted his older papers or this recent paper. Even if you don't accept his concluding model, You can refer to his works which are based on solid works such as - The relation between Khasi and Palaungic. I am not aware of any study of 5000 years-old ancient DNA from Northeast. If you are pointing towards time-depth between different branches, I doubt if time-depth do represent arrival time because it doesn't say how much time they spent on the way. Northeast heritage (talk) 10:58, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

He does collaborate with other scholars and most of his works are peer-reviewed. So, Scholars agree with him. As I am not an expert, I won't be able to explain much. Please go through the paper. Thanks Northeast heritage (talk) 11:09, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

@Chaipau: What is your final thought? Also, two competing hypotheses of the origin of the Sino-Tibetan language family: the ‘northern-origin hypothesis’ and the ‘southwestern-origin hypothesis’. The northern-origin hypothesis states that the initial expansion of Sino-Tibetan languages occurred approximately 4,000–6,000 years before present (BP; taken as AD 1950) in the Yellow River basin of northern China, and that this expansion is associated with the development of the Yangshao and/or Majiayao Neolithic cultures. The southwestern-origin hypothesis states that an early expansion of Sino-Tibetan languages occurred before 9,000 years BP from a region in southwest Sichuan province in China5 or in northeast India, where a high diversity of Tibeto-Burman languages exists today. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-019-1153-z. All models are speculative model and scholars accept the one which satisfy most parameters. My stance is with the recently published peer-reviewed papers. Northeast heritage (talk) 04:55, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Here is another paper for ST. It says -Here we reconstruct the phylogeny of the Sino-Tibetan language family, using Bayesian computational methods applied to a larger and linguistically more diverse sample. Our results confrm previous work in fnding that the ancestral SinoTibetans frst split into Sinitic and Tibeto-Burman clades, and support the existence of key internal relationships. But we fnd that the initial divergence of this group occurred earlier than previously suggested, at approximately 8000 years before the present, coinciding with the onset of millet-based agriculture and signifcant environmental changes in the Yellow River region. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-77404-4 . Northeast heritage (talk) 05:34, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Sidwell's himself calls it a "speculative proposal". So that ends there.

Zhang et al uses a "novel" method to create a phylogeny and its biggest contribution is that it adds weight to one of the sides in the Sino-Tibetan split debate. One of its novel finding is that the split occurred 8000 BP, which is too early. It says Ancient-DNA analyses also suggest that early Neolithic farmers in North China did not expand into southeast China until after around 6000 BP. This discrepancy, it explains, is because the trigger for language divergence processes was not necessarily migration or geographical separation. The inferred root age (initial divergence date) likely represents the formation of subgroups of speakers separated by distinct ecological niches or social distances, who are no longer in frequent contact and thus start to innovate their language in different ways. So you cannot infer the migration dates from the dates from this paper. All you can do is infer just upper limits (my WP:OR). Thus, in my very liberal reading---the Boro-Garo language speakers became socially distant from the Northern Naga languages about 3500BP (from the phylogeny tree), and going by what the paper is arguing, this means that the Boro-Garo languages entered the Brahmaputra valley after about 1500 BCE (this is WP:OR and we cannot use it in Wikipedia). This, in fact, agrees with DeLancey (2012: p13-14): Most scholars suggest that the first Tibeto-Burman-speaking peoples began to enter Assam at least 3,000 years ago. So WP:SYNTH-ing DeLancey and Zhang et al (which Wikipedia does not allow), we could say the TB speakers reached the Assam valley between 1500 BCE and 1000 BCE. The AA speakers in northeast India, OTOH, have been dated to >5000 BP from genetic studies. In other words, we are left with the same scenario as earlier.

Pinging Austronesier for comments. Chaipau (talk) 14:54, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

@Chaipau: What is a model according to you? That's his conclusion in the form of a model. He cite 2020's work in his 2021's paper. It appears I should consult some expert editor on this topic. Does your logic behind WP:OR work for creolized language? Your WP:SYNTHESIS or WP:OR are beyond my understanding. Can give the citation for your claim The AA speakers in northeast India, OTOH, have been dated to >5000 BP from genetic studies.. Northeast heritage (talk) 15:47, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Please look at this. "A serial decrease in expansion time from east to west: 5.7 ± 0.3 Kya in Laos, 5.2 ± 0.6 in Northeast India, and 4.3 ± 0.2 in East India, suggested a late Neolithic east to west spread of the lineage O2a1‐M95 from Laos." Chaipau (talk) 16:00, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

@Chaipau: Expansion time isn't arrival time. Please check the meaning of different terms. Only conclusion of that paper is a late Neolithic east to west spread of the lineage O2a1‐M95 from Laos. Northeast heritage (talk) 16:04, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Your conclusion in your WP:OR. The time is explicitly given in the paper. You cannot ignore it. Chaipau (talk) 16:15, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

"How can meaning of a word" fall under WP:OR Northeast heritage (talk) 16:23, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Your WP:OR is the assertion that the only conclusion from the genetics paper is that the spread happened in the late neolithic period. Genetics does not deal with material culture of a people, which is what "neolithic" implies a period of. But you have ignored the times that are given in the paper, which is the precise result the paper is reporting. You cannot pick and choose the result of your liking.

Even if the 5200 years before present represent the upper limit of the expansion of the AA, this still is higher than the upper limit for Boro-Garo, which is 3500 years before present from the Zhang et al paper. But this is not a proper comparison for Wikipedia. We have to go by what scholars have explicitly said about this. And scholars like DeLancey and Jacquesson has explicitly said that when the TB speakers arrived at the Brahmaputra valley, the AA were already present there. Chaipau (talk) 17:12, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

I am not expert so I maninly focus on conclusion because there are lots of technical terms. But whatever you mentioned about expansion time and Zhang et al. are not correct. Please understand the meaning of expansion time in context of population genetics. Zhang et al mention about separation between TB and Sinetic, Migration of northern Chinese, and so on. Please go through entire paper. Northeast heritage (talk) 17:33, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

And my model does not matter in Wikipedia. There is widespread acceptance in modern northeast Indian linguistic scholarship that the AA preceded the TB speakers. And the genetic data agrees with the linguistic data too. The archaeological data from early settlements also agree with people from southeast Asia. It will require much more than a speculative proposal to dismantle the current status. Chaipau (talk) 16:09, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

@Chaipau: Where is the agreement? If you think expansion means arrival, let us approach some experts on this topic. Northeast heritage (talk) 16:21, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

The agreement is that the TB reached NE India after AA. Look at DeLancey and Jaquesson, for example. Chaipau (talk) 16:42, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

These sources are based on the popular hypothesis of that time. Now understanding has changed and the hypothesis has changed. Also, Please note that Paul Sidwell is a well-known expert on AA. I can't access his older papers. This (--> AUSTROASIATIC DISPERSAL: THE INDO-CHINA MARITIME HYPOTHESIS. Indian Linguistics 81.12:15-32.) is the required paper. Please read. Thanks for the discussion. Northeast heritage (talk) 17:07, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Of course, Sidwell is well known. He is also known to make speculative proposals and abandoning them "I abandon my earlier (Sidwell 2009, 2010 and elsewhere) proposed AA homeland..." Wikipedia will always go by the consensus of the current scholarship. Here we are dealing with TB languages and the TB linguists are most relevant. If they say they see AA there before TB that is what Wikipedia will report. Chaipau (talk) 17:42, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

He abandoned proposed AA homeland of older papers, but not the bases of his research which come from multiple scholars. Also, Scholarship is incremental process. All hypotheses are speculation only. This is just a beginning. Very soon things will be crystal clear. Northeast heritage (talk) 18:09, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

When these theories become established Wikipedia will update the according to its policies. It will be updated even without your intervention. Chaipau (talk) 19:41, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

My personal view is that Khasic people possess characteristics of Hill tribes belonging to TB. Khas means Hill. Khasia means Hilly. Though their ancestor were proto-AA, their ancestors mixed with Hill tribes belonging to TB. Thus, they are more like Hill TB than AA (supported by Genetics). They might migrate hill after hill. I trust Britishers for community folklore. Currently Bodo, Dimasa, Khasi and other community scholars seem to add new folklores which may not have any truth value. Northeast heritage (talk) 22:11, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

I am afraid your POV does not matter in Wikipedia. It is good to know because Wikipedia will have to guard against your POV. Please look at WP:NPOV. Pinging Fylindfotberserk and Austronesier for visibility. Chaipau (talk) 09:50, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

It was not an argument. I am not trying to include it in WP articles. It was just a random thought. Possibly WP:OR. Please ignore it. Northeast heritage (talk) 10:58, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Jaquesson and DeLancey hypothesis

@Chaipau: Your addition about language shift from AA is a hypothesis only. Genetic reports doesn't support the same. Y-chromosomal study on Baric population found homogenous Haplogroup belonging to ST family. Check this - Y chromosome haplotypes reveal prehistorical migrations to the Himalayas https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11153912/ . So, Genetics doesn't agree with their hypothesis. Kindly add this too. Northeast heritage (talk) 09:59, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Huh?! The prevalence of The O2a-M95 in the Northeast population shows widespread presence of Austroasiatic. Chaipau (talk) 10:04, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Also all the lingusists named—Burling, DeLancey and Jacquesson have agreed that Austroasiatics have language shifted into Boro-Garo. There is agreement among linguists and geneticists that there are Austroasiatic peoples in the current Boro-Garo (and Assamese) populations. Chaipau (talk) 10:10, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

@Chaipau: Evidence for The prevalence of The O2a-M95 in the Northeast population shows widespread presence of Austroasiatic. ? Also which population ? Did anybody find O2a-M95 in Bodo-Kacharis ? Northeast heritage (talk) 10:16, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes. I have cited a reference. Chaipau (talk) 10:20, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

@Chaipau: Where ? Does that citation specifically mention Bodo-Kacharis? Northeast heritage (talk) 10:25, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

@Northeast heritage: can you cite a reference that shows the absence of O2a in Boko-Kachari? Chaipau (talk) 10:42, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

@Chaipau: Why should I? Your recent addition from sahoo et al https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1347984/ is also not about Bodo-Kachari, So, please self-revert your recent edit. Currently Bodo-Kacharis may have R-haplogroup but what matters is the percentage. Should we discuss this on WP:DRN ? Northeast heritage (talk) 10:51, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

@Northeast heritage: you should, because you want to prove that the Bodo-Kachari people do not have Austroasiatic parentage. I have shown that scholars agree. I shall be adding more references. If you want to go to DRN, you have to complete the discussion here and then go 3O before DRN. Chaipau (talk) 10:55, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

@Chaipau: I never said that Bodo-Kacharis don't have AA %. So far we don't know the %. If you find, please add. But your recent edit isn't about Bodo-Kacharis. Currently none of AA scholars like Blech, Rau, Sidwell agree with pre-existing hypothesis about AA before TB in Brahmaputra valley. This should also be reported. Whenever TB and AA mixing happened, Report it. Currently Origin of Bodo-Kacharis section is only focussed on the AA based on hypotheses of Jaquesson and DeLancey. It doesn't seem to be neutral. Northeast heritage (talk) 11:13, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

OK, great, we agree. I have shown that Linguistic, anthropological and genetic evidence agree. I am not sure how this could not be neutral. I have already addressed the issues of Sidwell and others above.

Also, you seem to be pushing a POV to establish the TB as the original language of Northeast. You must give clear evidence that clear and explicitly says this and disputes the evidence from anthropology, linguistics, genetics. van Driem has explicitly said that this is the general consensus for the last hundred years or so. Sidwell's "speculative proposal" does not topple this multi-disciplinary evidence. It fails both WP:FRINGE and WP:WEIGHT and probably many others. Chaipau (talk) 11:25, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

@Chaipau: We must divide the section into Easter Boro-Garo speakers and Western Boro-Garo speakers AS Jaquesson did. Garo, Koch, Rabha were matriarchal, So, They can get any kind of Y-Chromosome. Presently the section is mainly focussed on Western Boro-Garo speakers. Northeast heritage (talk) 11:21, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

No, I do not agree. There were strong mother-goddess cultures in the east (Deoris, Chutiya etc.). Chaipau (talk) 11:25, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

@Northeast heritage: I am beginning to suspect your expertise in tribal issues. I think you gave the game away when you said since the matrilineal people could get the Y-chromosome from anywhere. This is almost a licentious remark. The Khasis, for instance have a clan called Dkhar to which people with mixed parentage belong. The Dimasa have both male and female clans—daughters belong to their mother's clan and sons to their father's. The Garos take their clan identity from their mothers. The tribal people have very sophisticated mechanisms to maintain their gene pool. So please be careful what you say here. Chaipau (talk) 16:00, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

@Chaipau: This is not any licentious remark. Stop imposing negativity. Koch dynasty is good example. Also large chunk of Khasis possess Tibeto-Burman haplogroup. They had mixed in past. Fact is fact. Northeast heritage (talk) 16:14, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

@Northeast heritage: this is true for everyone. I will be very surprised if the Boro people did not have a M95 distribution. Do you want to attribute it to the Boros not having clans in the true tribal sense? Chaipau (talk) 16:24, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

@Chaipau:Can't understand your question. I've not studied much about Boros. I just started to read whatever i can find in Wikipedia Comment in my talk page. This isn't right place to discuss any arbitrary topic. Northeast heritage (talk) 16:31, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

@Chaipau: If you are talking about clan system, My understanding of tribal society says that Tribal society is egalitarian. Different tribes created their clan for different reasons. British accounts say that Kacharis of Darrang were very clannish people. They didn't like to mix to others but they were very much united within the community. If there was some problem between a Kachari worker and Britishers, all Kachari workers used to be against Britishers. Northeast heritage (talk) 16:48, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

All Bodo-Kacharis have the mother-goddess concept. Also, Shiv and Shakti were popular in the Indian subcontinent. The history and culture of Bodo-Kacharis before the arrival of Indo-Aryans are obscure. But matriarchal society is a completely different thing. Linguistically and culturally Eastern-Central Boro-Garo speakers and Western Boro-Garo speakers are different. There are two reasons to separate them. What you claim to be my POV is the current understanding of AA expansion. Claiming a hypothesis for a century doesn't make it acceptable if it doesn't agree with current evidence. So, please stop commenting on me. We are discussing the right way to write this section. Northeast heritage (talk) 11:52, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Where is the evidences? TB linguists repeat century-old hypotheses. I don't see any evidence except the hypothesis.Northeast heritage (talk) 11:56, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Huh! I would say this is a classic example of WP:IDNHT. Look at all the citations.

Also, East/West division does not make sense because Boro is in the west and Dimasa is in the east and they are pretty close, language-wise. Garo and Boro are both in the west. Recent scholarship originates Tantra in the Assam region, and the mother-goddess concepts are strongest in the AA communities in mainland India. Nevertheless, you have to cite references to show the east-west divide that shows either a cultural or a linguistic divide. You have not. I am not making any comment on you, but your POV (which you have stated above) and your agenda to show the TB speakers as the original inhabitants in Assam is pretty clear for everyone to see. Chaipau (talk) 12:03, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

To be specific, look at the references from Burling, DeLancey, Jacquesson, van Dreim, Sahoo, Chaubey etc. Chaipau (talk) 12:06, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

All of your citations come from very old papers but science isn't static subject. I was trying to write about Bodo-Kacharis. I tried edit according to my knowledge from WP:RS, but I couldn't. Northeast heritage (talk) 12:16, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Please look at WP:RSAGE. Sometimes there is something like too new. Your 2021/2022 papers are too new.

To be sure, the BG creolisation has been set down by Burling in 2007. This was accepted by DeLancey who extended it by discussing the situation that triggered the development of a lingua franca. So the creolisation hypothesis is not DeLancey's but Burling's. Jacquesson further reinforces it by showing AA cultural features in BG communities. Further, Chaubey adds genetic evidence by showing AA parentage in Garo. So this was not a hypothesis that hung out to dry. It found support in the wider linguistic community and genetic evidence. Science needs to use the Occam's razor. You need to remove the needless complicated explanation and adopt the simple one. Just something new is not always accepted. String Theory is the latest theory of everything, but it is not accepted as truth yet. Chaipau (talk) 12:44, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

@Chaipau: I have a good understanding of how theories work. The current version about the origin of Bodo-Kacharis looks like Austroasiaticization of Bodo-Kacharis. What a great logic, river names begin with water(di) and end with water(ong), you cite such a great historian/linguist Hamlet Bareh. I am done. Northeast heritage (talk) 14:40, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Hamlet Bareh is well known. He has written widely and the quote is taken from a standard work. I am just putting this out for the records. No, this is not Austroasiaticization of Bodo-Kacharis. What has happened is Tibeto-Burmification (as DeLancey has said explicitly p13, not my term) of Austroasiatic populations, and then later the Indo-Aryanisation of Boro-Garo populations. The evidence is overwhelming. You can't blame it on Bareh. Chaipau (talk) 15:22, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Hamlet Bareh's claim is incorrect. Please add his claim to the river names which specifically end with -ong. There is huge difference between -ong and -ang. And why ignore the central parts. This is WP:UNDUE. Also, You shouldn't rely on old genetics paper because algorithm to calculate the age of Haplogroup is improved over time and the mutation rate is calibrated according to new discovery. Genetics paper often look up to linguists. Genetics give instaneous information such as type of haplogroup, age of haplogroup, but not the migration of haplogroup. This my learning from Arunkumar et al and so on. Northeast heritage (talk) 16:01, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

I have a hard to follow the arguments of both of you, as you constantly try to draw own conclusions from scholarly works, and use them to refute hypotheses from other disciplines (see the very start of this discussion). Actually, it's not hard to follow, but annoying. It's all about haplogroups, when the gold standard in genetic studies in the last ten years or so has been full-genome analysis (f4-statitics and derived methods). And so on. It's all speculative as long as we don't have aDNA from the area that will help us to add an important piece to the puzzle, and to understand the layering of populations and their languages in NE India. And even then we can only make inspired guesses since bones don't talk.

TB-speaker certainly did not arrive in uninhabited territory, and most probably absorbed preexisting populations that spoke non-TB languages. There are many good sources (mostly by historical linguists) that equate these populations with AA-speakers, and as long we don't have sources which explicitly say they're wrong, it's not ours to exploit the cherry orchard of e.g. genetic studies in order to support or to refute these linguistic-based models—unless reliable sources explicitly do so. Personally, I'm very skeptical of hypotheses by geneticists that equate AA-speakers with the pre-Neolithic populations of Mainland Southeast Asia and eastern South Asia (e.g. Tagore et al. 2021); isn't it more probable that the expansion of AA, TB and later also IE speakers simply erased an earlier linguistic diversity? But again, personal preferences and speculations don't matter here. –Austronesier (talk) 19:42, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

@Austronesier: indeed!

I do see DeLancey include "and probably others" very judiciously (included in the article), but I am not sure whether historical linguistics will be able to venture beyond this limit. I remember getting interested in Tagore et al because of the claimed Hoabinhian connection, but on good advice I let it go. As far as Sidwell goes, I would like to wait for a while (and shall correct the Mekong connection in another place---I had been too lazy to do so till now.)

I would like to see if there are other good sources that discuss the pre-TB population in NE India. I just see the ones named here.

Chaipau (talk) 20:37, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

I started to distrust Tagore et al. (2021) once I reached the passage "(1) Why in spite of being regarded as the autochthones of S&SEA are their census presence so limited? (2) Why in spite of a wide geographical presence, which is considered a hallmark of successful expansion, are the AA populations fragmented, isolated and small? (3) If the widespread distribution of the AA language is a result of technological advantage and if it has happened post-agriculture, why is it that almost all extant AA population groups are tribal hunter-gatherers, or primitive agriculturists?" So who are the Mon, Khmer and Vietnamese then? Chopped liver? :) –Austronesier (talk) 20:44, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

@Austronesier: Request you to please vet the Bodo-Kachari people#Origin section. Please add this to the ever growing list of requests . I shall be adding something more in this section---the impact of yet another lingua franca event that resulted in many communities accepting Assamese. Hopefully this section will explain the Bodo-Kachari ethnic configuration in Assam. Chaipau (talk) 13:37, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

@Austronesier: Belated, Thank you for your comment. Burling 2003 & 2007, Jacquesson 2006 & 2008 and DeLancey 2012 follow the hypothesis that AA migrated from SEA to Mainland India and Khasi languages form the link between Mon-Khmer and Munda languages, and this hypothesis is proved incorrect. Recent scholarships have offered much more than hypotheses such as genetics, migration time, routes, inter-branch relationships etc.

Boro-Garo languages are kept under the Tibeto-Burman branch, but it is nothing like Tibetic (Bodish) and Burmese languages, instead Sagart et al. 2019 found that Boro-Garo-Konyak-Jingpo (Sal) is closer to Sinitic branch e.g. In Boro-Garo, Mai means Paddy or Rice, and In Cantonese, Mai means Paddy or Rice. Also, Boro-Garo speakers lack D-haplogroup which is prominent in other Tibeto-Burmans, so Scholars consider Baric branch to be the first Sino-Tibetan group to occupy the Himalayan region.

Some Assamese scholars like Kakati were very much devoted to discovering AA heritage. For instance, Kamarupa inscriptions were in the Sanskrit language (with Prakrit influence), and many river names occur in Boro-Garo language and sometimes end with suffix like Jala. These suffixes can be in proto-Boro-Garo, or Prakrit, or Sanskrit, or Santali but Scholars often connect them to Santali. Assamese is a sister language of Bengali, Bihari, Odia. Isn't it most likely that the Ancestor of the Assamese language carried whatever AA heritage it possesses as it finds Santali heritage?

There is no lack of Absurdity in scholarship in Assam e.g. Dihong [Di(Water)-hong(wide)] means wide river in Boro-Garo and it correctly describes the river but some Assam-based scholars claim Di means water in Boro-Garo and -ong means water in Austroasiatic, so Tibeto-Burman immigrants prefixed Di- infront of pre-existing Austroasiatic river names.

I am sceptical about Pre-TB and Pre-AA in Assam because of geographic problems. The Brahmaputra valley of Northeast was a sparsely populated region. There were numerous tribes occupying different hills and regions. If Pre-TB and Pre-AA existed, they would have been detected. You may check | This . Northeast heritage (talk) 16:32, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Recent edits

@Northeast heritage: why are you trying to make the "Origins" section about the language? This section is not about the origins of the language but the people. And the origins of this people is in a multilingual society that spoke Tibeto-Burman as well as Austroasiatic. Chaipau (talk) 10:01, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Your question doesn't make any sense. This group is connected to proto-Boro-Garo language speakers and all of your citations come from Boro-Garo language papers. Your additions are mostly hypotheses. You should divide the group into two parts - Easter Boro-Garo and Western Boro-Garo as Jaqquesson did. And the origins of this people is in a multilingual society that spoke Tibeto-Burman as well as Austroasiatic isn't proved. Also, Genetic doesn't support this. I am writing about Bodo-Kacharis, not Austroasiatic. They may or mayn't be part of Bodo-Kacharis. Which of my edit isn't for Bodo-Kachari ? Northeast heritage (talk) 10:14, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Of course not, the people of this group speak Boro-Garo as well as Assamese. And the evidence is pretty glaring that AA formed a strong component of this group. Chaipau (talk) 11:29, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Ramirez issues

@Chaipau: Ramirez is good for current affairs but its claims related to History can't be taken seriously e.g. Bodo-Kachari_people#cite_note-27 contradicts the fact that Dimasa (Kachari) were Hill tribe. Northeast heritage (talk) 14:11, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Why not? He makes many references to historical facts. Chaipau (talk) 16:58, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

@Chaipau:Mech/Boro, Kachari/Boro, Dimasa, Boro, Dimasa, Plain Kachari/Boro, Hill Kachari/Dimasa, Tippera, Garo, Rabha, Lalung, Koch, Chutia, Moran, Barahi, Sarania, Sonowal, Thengal etc were used in colonial documents. Colonial documents are pretty much clear what is meant by Kacharis. Ahom chronicles aren't ethnographic work. They only mention whom they encounter. They never encountered Mech and Rabha, so they never mentioned these names. Bodo label was extended by Hodgson and Kachari label was extended by Endle but Bodo label was established as generic name by Gait. Check this . Thank you. Good night. Northeast heritage (talk) 17:22, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes, sure. Here is what Ramirez says: Much of colonial and post-Independence literature was—and is still often—set within an ethnic paradigm reflecting the essentialism of colonial and local elites, and which it helped to reinforce and propagate. Together with several post-Independence socioeconomic and political developments, this was one of the contributing factors to an enduring process of “ethnicisation”. So some of the ethnicization is the result of colonialism and its aftermath. The use of the term "Bodo" itself is the most glaring example, and which people are trying desperately to get away from. So I am not surprised that you would object to Ramirez.

Contrary to what you claim, the Ahoms, over the course of their 600 years of of history, knew the peoples very well. Of course they are not ethnographic works, but they have enough details in the Buranjis for people with the right methodologies to pull out the right kind of information, which Ramirez has done. I do not need to make this point to you. Ramirez is RS. Chaipau (talk) 17:49, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Ramirez is also aware that the locals may not like the book. He writes: I’m also aware that many of my local friends will be disappointed by this book, that they won’t recognise the image they have of their country, that they will feel I have devoted too many pages to details which they deem futile, and not enough to what seems most important to them. To me, however, the best way of giving back a bit of what I have received is to offer something useful, and that is the point of view of a foreigner and my passion for the hidden mazes of human societies. I will be quite happy if this book contributes, even through contradictions, to the debates on history and culture of which my friends are so fond. As can be expected this is what you'd like a true academic to write. He should be truthful to his trade (methodologies) and he should draw conclusions that purely from his methodologies and he should not be pressured by personal relationships. Chaipau (talk) 18:14, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

I am not here to establish "Bodo" generic term. I just pointed out who established it because the etymology section refers to Grierson. Instead, I support Boro-Garo or Boro-Koch using dvinda technique because the generic term for linguistic group has changed, so the generic term of the group of peoples who speak or used to speak Boro-Garo languages should also be changed. Ramirez is WP:RS but need to take care of WP:DUE. Everything he writes may not be correct. I have not read his book. I just checked your citation and i found it incorrect because Hill tribe Dimasa were also called Kachari. Northeast heritage (talk) 18:41, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Now I see. He cites Bhuyan et al. 1936. I am very much aware of Bhuyan's work. Also Ramirez didn't write much about Kacharis. His main focus was hill tribes. Northeast heritage (talk) 18:50, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

No, Ramirez's work is about what he calls in the title --- margin. Chaipau (talk) 19:22, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

A better nomenclature

Kachari-Koch peoples or Bodo-Koch peoples Northeast heritage (talk) 05:52, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

We will wait till these names gain currency in reliable sources. Chaipau (talk) 03:20, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

To my knowledge, Damant, Burling, DeLancey, Jaquesson, Driem and Hazarika have already used Bodo-Koch/Garo. Northeast heritage (talk) 05:14, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

The linguists have used the name Boro-Garo languages to classify a collection of languages. This is the preferred spelling now among the linguists. But this article is about peoples. And many of the people here do not speak Boro-Garo languages. Such as the Morans. And the Rajbanshis. Chaipau (talk) 12:12, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

I know about all these things. Bodo-Koch (Damant's Kachari-Koch , Gait's Bodo) represent the group of peoples who speak or used to speak any of the Boro-Garo languages. The modern approach to classify peoples is based on linguistic studies. Probably Austronesier can guide on this topic. I just wanted to provide this reference to improve the article. I am signing off. Northeast heritage (talk) 12:28, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Please change the title to Greater-Kacharis of assam.

The term bodo-kachari or bodos is used to denote a perticular tribe bodo or the boros who speaks the bodo/boro language. The other tribes of assam doesn't consider themself as bodos as they don't speak the same language nor wear the attire. Bodo/boro is a different tribe then the Dimasa, Sonowal, tiwa,deori etc. Jagat deuri (talk) 19:29, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Not true. Look at Bodo–Kachari_people#cite_note-jacobnote-1, and please read the article closely. Wikipedia makes a distinction between Bodo and Boro. Bodo is the larger composite group, as the citation claims, and Boro is the name of a specific group. And nowhere in the article is it implied that the other groups are Boro. In fact it is mentioned in the lad itself that the groups may or may not have a common ancestor. Chaipau (talk) 03:19, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

But the suggestion is good, if we can find some recent authors using this name. Chaipau (talk) 23:10, 19 October 2022 (UTC)