Talk:Peopling of India

Start

I'm starting this article and, given strong opinions and varying evidence on this topic, it is likely that it will go through a rough and tumble phase. That is fine. And the whole area of how the subcontinent was colonized by humans is too important to simply ignore. However, everything should be referenced. As a ground rule, it would be good to agree to be ruthless about pruning out anything that is not accompanied by reliable and inline references. --Hunnjazal (talk) 02:21, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Dravidian-speakers - Dravidian-speakers are Australoid, not Caucasoid

Hunnjazal wrote: I guess the rough and tumble phase has begun 1.5 years after I predicted it :)

Bodhidharma, much of the recent genetic analysis indicates a different variant of the story. Dravidian speakers were very much caucasoid. Infact, based on the analysis of Brahui speakers, it appears that they are *more* Caucasian than neighboring Indo-European speakers (both Baloch and Persian). See Brahui are something old, not new:

"The Brahui look to be somewhat less cosmopolitan than the Balochi, and less South Asian. Balochi is a Northwest Iranian language, like Kurdish. This points to an intrusive history of this group in the current region which it dominates. If the Brahui and Baloch are both intrusive, I suspect that the latter are more recent than the former."

Please digest this: it means that Brahuis who are less South Asian speak Dravidian and Balochs who are more South Asian speak IE. On top of that Dravidian higher-castes show marked differences from North Indians and North Indian high castes in having higher percentages (almost double) of Southwest Asian haplotypes like J2:

"The frequency of J2 is higher in South Indian castes (19%) than in North Indian castes (11%) or Pakistan (12%)."

It looks like Dravidian arrived in India with Iranian caucasoid invaders who spread everywhere. Then there was a second Caucasoid wave of IE speakers (Aryans) who were genetically more South Asian proximate (these display higher East European type haplotypes). They may have caused language switches in Iran (from Elamite language) and Northern India from Dravidian, which still leaves a tonne of Dravidian words in IE languages of North India. It all points to a Iranian caucasoid origin for Dravidian. All non-tribal Indians (except in the NE) are basically caucasoid.
Look at Histogram of genetic components of various Indian individuals. In this C1 is primarily Neolithic caucasoid native to South Asia. Your linking of Australoid ethnicity and Dravidian speakers is *totally* wrong. What do you base this on? I have not seen any recent research or books that would substantiate this. Produce reliable references please or desist. I am totally comfortable including alternative hypothesis as long as they are referenced. Thanks! --Hunnjazal (talk) 11:00, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Reply by Bodhisharma7: Hunnjazal,

I've already provided a number of references demonstrating that Dravidians are primarily of Australoid racial origin, but you never bothered reading them.

• This is from my first source, by the The Indian Genome Variation database 2005:

"All the four major morphological types—Caucasoid, Mongoloid, Australoid and Negrito are present in the Indian population (Malhotra 1978). The ‘‘Caucasoid’’ and ‘‘Mongoloid’’ populations are mainly concentrated in the north and northeastern parts of the country. The ‘‘Australoids’’ are mostly confined to the central, western and southern India, while the ‘‘Negritos’’ are restricted only to the Andaman Islands (CavalliSforza et al. 1994) (Fig. 1)."

You should study Fig.1 and Fig.2 carefully, because the Australoid region overlaps with the region where Dravidian languages are spoken.

• Here's another study from 2003 which basically says the same thing:

"Indian populations include four ethnic groups: Austroloid, Negrito, Mongoloid, and Caucasoid. Caucasoid and Mongoloid populations are mainly concentrated in the north and northeastern parts of the country. The Australoid groups are mostly confined to the central, western and southern India, while the Negritos are restricted only to the Andaman Islands ... Majority of Indians speak Indo-European or Dravidian languages, spread over the northern and southern parts of the subcontinent, respectively."

• Here's another study from 2004, which says the same thing:

"The diverse populations in India can be broadly classified phenotypically into four ethnic classes: Australoid, Negrito, Mongoloid, and Caucasoid. The last ethnic group is spread the over entire country, with specific concentration in the northern regions. Australoid group is mostly confined to western and southern states. The Negrito element is restricted to the Andaman Islands..."

Look at Appendix 1 of the same study and notice how all the Dravidian/Austro-Asiatic populations are classified as Australoid.

• This study from 2003 speaks of Tamil Nadu being predominantly Australoid and then uses three endogamous Australoid populations in order to demonstrate the indigenous origin of Dravidian-speakers as a whole:

"Population groups inhabiting Tamil Nadu have the distinction of belonging to the Dravidian linguistic family and are predominantly of Australoid ethnicity ... In the study reported here, we attempt to verify the indigenous origin of the Dravidian linguistic group represented by the three endogamous Australoid groups from Tamil Nadu as a separate genetic pool and analyze the extent of diversity and gene flow among them using autosomal microsatellite markers ... The NJ dendrogram also suggests a strong association between the migrant Indian population in United Arab Emirates and Dravidian populations of India [including the 3 Tamil populations in Fig.3], which can be expected since a considerable number of the southern Indian Dravidians reside in the Emirates."

I could go on and on, but this should be enough for now.

Now, I'm not interested in any forum wars or anything like that and I am prepared to compromise, if you are. I have provided more than enough evidence that Dravidians are non-Caucasoid, but am willing to conclude that Dravidians are a mixture of Caucasoid and Australoid elements, which is the middle way.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bodhidharma7 (talk • contribs) 16:06, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Reply by Hunnjaza: Bodhidharma, you are missing the point entirely and confusing language for ethnicity (and I have differences with the other stuff you say - but leave that aside for now). This article is about the "Peopling of India" and not about "the People of India." The question is who the original Dravidian speakers were and here the evidence is overwhelming. They were Caucasoid and possibly *more* Caucasoid than IE speakers. The article explicitly says the Australoids came in prior to the Caucasoids.
What looks like happened was: Negritos, AA-speaking Australoids, then a period of 10-20k years, then Dravidian caucasoids. Dravidian languages spread from these people to the entire subcontinent, which is why it is found all the way from Iran to Bangladesh down to the southernmost tip of India. Then came IE which supplanted Dravidian, but still left lots of Dravidian roots, place names, etc in the Northern subcontinent.
You have not provided a single piece of evidence that says Dravidians = Australoids. What you are doing is WP-SYNTH. Reverting and will continue to do so. Please arrive at consensus here first. I have no agenda at all on any of this but you have to go with published references without synthesizing. Provide links to your sources. Even North Indians and Pashtoons (who are part of the subcontinental ANI-ASI cline) demonstrate some presence of ASI of 20-30% and more, i.e. even they are a mix of Australoid/Negrito and Caucasoid, so I don't know what you're getting at there. This is true of modern-day IA, subcontinental Iranian and Dravidian speakers alike. Only the percentages vary. --Hunnjazal (talk) 16:12, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Further reply by Hunnjazal: BTW, in your source Microsatellite Diversity among Three Endogamous Tamil Populations Suggests Their Origin from a Separate Dravidian Genetic Pool, look more carefully at the dendrogram. Karnataka Brahmins are closer to Kallars and Pallars than Vanniyars are. North Indian Kayasths are closer to Vanniyars than they are to Bihari Bhumihars. --Hunnjazal (talk) 16:22, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Reply by Bodhidharma7: Hunnjazal, you haven't read any of my sources. All of them clearly indicate that southern India is mostly occupied by Australoids, which is where the majority of Dravidian languages are spoken. And yes, many researchers have stated that Dravidian = Australoid, such as in this paper by Chakraborty et al.:

"Since in the current ethnohistoric literature the terms Caucasoid and Proto-Australoid are commonly used to indicate Indo-Aryan and Dravidian ancestry, in this paper we will use the terminology of Caucasoid for Indo-Aryan and Proto-Australoid for Dravidian interchangeably."

This study pretty much says that Dravidians = Australoids:

"They belonged to the following ethnic groups: Rajput, Gorkha and South Indian. They represent different geographical, ecological and cultural settings of India. The Rajputs are from northwest India (Rajasthan), the Gorkhas are basically sub-mountainous people living in northern parts of India and South Indians are people from southern parts (Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Kerala, Tamil Nadu) of the country. Place of origin and age (i.e., date of birth) were self-reported. Based on morpholinguistic classification of the Indian population (4): Caucasoid=Indo-European (Rajputs), Mongoloid=Tibeto-Burman (Gorkhas) and Australoid=Dravidian (South Indians) subtypes."

Here's another study which equates Australoids with Dravidians:

"The Indian population includes several major ethnic groups, such as Indocaucasoid, Mongoloid, and Australoid, and the linguistic family includes Austroasiatic, Tibetoburman, Indoeuropean, and Dravidian. The Australoid/Dravidian population is confined to southern India; their language family is further subdivided into Telugu, Kannada, Malayalam, and Tamil."

Here's another study:

"The tribes in Orissa, as in the whole of India, are by no means homogeneous in their history, language, culture or social organization. It may be mentioned here that the major tribes of Orissa belong to three linguistic groups, namely, Indo-Aryan or Indo-Europeans (Non-Australoid), Austro-Asiatic (Mundari) speakers (Proto-Australoid) and Dravidian (Gondi or Kuvi) speakers (Australoid). Mundari speakers (Austro-Asiatic) belong to Proto-Australoid racial group, which include Bhumiz, Gadaba, Juang, Kharia, Koda, Kolha, Mahali, Mirdha, Munda, Santal and Saora tribes. The Northern Mundari comprise of tribes such as the Bhumiz, Juang, Kharia, Kolha or Ho, Korku, Munda and Santal; and from the southern region, the Southern Mundari covering the tribes, namely, Bonda, Didayi, Gadaba, Parenga and Saora. Tribes like Bathudi, Bhatra, Binjhal, Bhuyan, Lodha and Saunti are Indo-Aryan or Indo-European speakers and belong to non-Australoid racial stock. The Dravidian (Kuvi or Gondi) speaker group belongs to Australoid racial stock and includes Gond, Kondh, Kissan oraon, Paraja and Pentia Halva tribes."

Also, you don't know how to read a dendrogram. Karnataka Brahmins are from southern India and have significant Australoid admixture, which is why they cluster with the Australoid Tamils. In fact, if southern Indians are so Caucasoid, then how come none of them cluster with Arabs or Pakistanis, like Northern Indians? Instead, they cluster with Tamils, an Australoid group. Also, Kayasths are in cluster II with the north Indians, whereas Vanniyars are in cluster I with the other Dravidian-speaking Australoids. You're not looking closely enough at the evidence because the conclusion is inescapable: most Dravidian-speakers are Australoid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bodhidharma7 (talk • contribs) 19:51, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Reply by Hunnjaza: I could contest this point by point but it seems pointless. Are you even reading what I wrote. You keep talking about present day. The question is who the original Dravidians were. I could similarly point to studies of Brahuis and say, Dravidian speakers are more Caucasoid than IE speakers. The question here is who peopled India first. Australoids came before Caucasoids. Are you contesting this? It seems like you're engaged in some other argument that has little to do with this article. Maybe we can compromise in the following way: "Many modern South Indian speakers of Dravidian languages appear to genetically be mixtures of Australoid and Caucasoid." Okay with this? Bottomline is that Dravidian languages didn't originate with Australoids. --Hunnjazal (talk) 01:17, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Reply by Bodhidharma7: Yes, I agree that Australoids came before Caucasoids, but here's my problem: the Caucasoids who invaded the subcontinent, the ANI, came about 3500 ybp. These were the Indo-Europeans. The Dravidians invaded about 8,000 ybp. These must have been ASI, because ANI-ASI admixture takes place about 3,500, which roughly coincides with the Caucasoid Indo-European migration into India. Of course, you know who possesses the purest ASI ancestry, it's the tribals I believe. I'm suspecting you might be arguing for some sort of Elamo-Dravidian hypothesis, in which the Dravidian languages were transmitted to India by Caucasoid Elamite agriculturalists and were subsequently adopted by Australoids or something like it. If this is the case, then I have no problem with what you are trying to say. Just make it clear in the article. I'm also OK with the final statement: "Many modern South Indian speakers of Dravidian languages appear to genetically be mixtures of Australoid and Caucasoid." I hope we can at least agree on this as this all sounds quite reasonable and finish this dispute once and for all.

Bodhidharma7 (talk) 01:58, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Further reply by Bodhidharma7: BTW, I believe the Brahui are an outlier. Anyway, that's all. I think we can come to an amicable agreement on this whole subject.

Bodhidharma7 (talk) 02:06, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Further reply by Bodhidharma7: Also, this might be of interest concerning the identity of the first Dravidian speakers in ancient India. This is from Reich's 2009 study:

"ANI ancestry is significantly higher in Indo-European than Dravidian speakers (P 5 0.013 by a one-sided test), suggesting that the ancestral ASI may have spoken a Dravidian language before mixing with the ANI."

And of course, the only ASI group in India without ANI ancestry are the Andamanese Onge tribe, as Reich says in the study. So what does this tell us? Well, it immediately suggests that at the time of Indo-Aryan conquest, the Dravidian speakers the invaders encountered were of Australoid race. And even from a linguistic point of view, if one looks at the Rig Veda, the Aryans refer to the aboriginals as black-skinned and flat-nosed, which is exactly what one would expect if most of India was inhabited by Dravidian Australoids. This is hardly the kind of description one would expect if they were Caucasoid. Although, I suppose one could argue that Caucasian Elamites carried the Dravidian language with them to India just before the Indo-Aryan migration, where it was rapidly adopted by the native Australoids as their own tongue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bodhidharma7 (talk • contribs) 22:11, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Reply by Hunnjaza: Okay, we're agreed on what to put in. To continue our other interesting discussion (otherwise we'll just end-up clashing in some other article on this), I think the emerging genetic-linguistic consensus that is emerging runs along the following lines now:

• Negritos come into India ~60k ybp: they contain the M mtDNA haplogroup - 60%+ of all Indians carry it and it is found in Kashmiris, Pathans, etc - they carry ASI
• Australoids come into India speaking AA 20-40k ybp (by this time the sea has risen and the land bridge to the Andamans is gone, so Negritos survive there largely intact)
• Caucasoid Dravidian speakers enter from Iran ~8.5k ybp; They spread everywhere as an elite group causing mass switches to Dravidian; Northern Indians speak Dravidian
• Caucasoid Indo-European speakers enter from Central Asia ~4k ybp; They spread in the Northern areas and cause North Indians to switch to IA, but a Dravidian substrate survives (In Iran also they cause switches from Elamite to IE/Iranian)

The thing is that ANI and ASI are not singular populations. ANI = Neolithic caucasoids + later incursions. ASI = Negrito + some element of Australoid. Another issue is that there were probably many migrating strands. If you look at the HarappaDNA site, you will see that even Punjabis, Kashmiris, etc carry some shared Onge DNA in them. All people on the Indian cline are ANI-ASI mixes, i.e. North Indians are Australoid-Caucasoid mixes too. In terms of peopling though, the Brahui are not the outliers - they appear to be part of the original Dravidian speaking group. This is also necessary to explain why South Indian Brahmins are proportionally so much more West Asian in Y-DNA than North Indian Brahmins.
Bottomline here is that Dravidian appears to have originated with West Asian Caucasoids and AA with Australoids. It is possible that it may have been associated with Australoids also, but then how did it get all the way to Iran and why do so many Australoids speak AA?
Lots of questions remain and this view may get revised also, since lots of Mongoloid people speak AA also and if Australoids were the first widespread group then how come AA languages don't have pockets everywhere like Dravidian does (it is found in Nepal as well). AFAIK only Australoids and Mongoloid tribes speak AA so it has to have come from one of them. What would you consider Santalis? They speak AA and appear to be Australoid.
The original founding block of ASI is likely Negrito and not Australoid: The Onge branch seems to descend from an ancestral population which also gave rise what is termed in the paper “Ancestral South Indian” (ASI) (Indians as hybrids: a.k.a Aryan invasion in the house!). ON RV references to snubnosed and darkskinned, it is now also suggested that this may be an encounter outside the boundaries of modern India between two Caucasoid groups. Remember that Iranians look darkskinned to Scandinavians. We just don't know what we don't know. --Hunnjazal (talk) 23:33, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Reply by Bodhidharma7: Yes, I would agree with your historical chronology of human migrations into India. However, osteo-archaeological evidence reveals that the ancient Harappans, a Dravidian-speaking culture, were comprised of both Mediterranean and Australoid elements, with the Australoid elements predominating. So it appears that there was some racial synthesis even before the Indo-Aryan invasion and probably to such an extent that the Mediterranean element was largely submerged by the time of the actual Indo-Aryan conquest of the subcontinent. The Caucasoid Elamites, the bringers of the urban civilization to the Indus valley, probably invaded the subcontinent through Balochistan and their influence upon the indigenous Australoid was so far-reaching as to result in a massive cultural and linguistic replacement which probably explains why the majority of modern Dravidian-speakers are of Australoid race.
But does it make sense to associate the origins of the modern Dravidian languages entirely with these Caucasoid migrants? To what extent was this proto-Dravidian language influenced by Elamite agriculturalists and to what extent was it influenced by indigenous Australoid inhabitants, phonetically, morphologically, grammatically etc.? It is entirely possible that the modern Dravidian languages may be of dual Elamo-Dravidian and Australoid origin, so to see it as being entirely Elamite in origin might be a mistake. You understand what I mean? There is still considerable uncertainty as to what the underlying syntactical structure of proto-Dravidian actually was; however, what does seem certain, from osteological evidence gathered from a variety of Chalcolithic sites around the Indus valley and recent genetic/archaeogenetic research, is that the people conquered by the Aryans were Dravidian-speaking Australoids, the dasas of the Rig Veda (which would also explain why they were referred to as dark-skinned and flat-nosed). The Indo-Iranians and Indo-Aryans were of the same racial stock and language, so it seems highly unlikely that the term "dasa" could have referred to another Caucasoid group.

As for the Brahui, they are most definitely an outlier, as it is the only Dravidian language which lies outside the region where the overwhelming majority of Dravidian languages are spoken. From what I've seen, there are two competing hypotheses as to their origins:

1. that they may be Indo-European migrants from central India who settled in Balochistan about 1000 AD or
2. the possible remnant of an ancient population of Elamo-Dravidian agriculturalists who subdued the indigenous Australoids of the subcontinent.

Again, you are totally mistaken about the genetic ancestry of the castes. As north Indians are more Caucasoid paternally than south Indians, so north Indian Brahmins are more Caucasoid paternally than south Indian Brahmins. This makes total sense if the Mediterranean Elamite stock was so completely absorbed by the aboriginals that by the time of the Indo-Aryan migrations, the native peoples were Dravidian-speaking Australoids, who subsequently fled to southern India to escape Aryan dominance. Anyway, there is still considerable uncertainty as to the origin of the Dravidian languages, as the linguist Krishnamurti argues (2003):

"For the time being, it is best to consider Dravidians to be natives of the Indian subcontinent who were scattered throughout the country by the time the Aryans entered India around 1500 BCE."

But just for the record, I would probably subscribe to the proto-Elamo-Dravidian hypothesis, with some reservations.

Bodhidharma7 (talk) 18:53, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Further reply by Bodhidharma7: As for the Austro-Asiatic languages, notably Munda, it is possible that Dravidian may have an Austro-Asiatic or a Para-Munda substrate, as it has been argued that certain words and grammatical features of Dravidian seem to be of proto-Munda origin. Dravidian may actually be a synthesis of Elamite and an ancient proto-Munda dialect, with whatever Austro-Asiatic elements present in the language largely being replaced by Elamite. Of course, this is just speculation, but it is a definite possibility and does contribute to the Elamo-Dravidian hypothesis.

Bodhidharma7 (talk) 19:36, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Further reply by Bodhidharma7: As for the literal interpretation of skin color as an ethnic marker as mentioned in the Rig Veda, this seems supported by other Sanskrit literature. The Sanskrit grammarian Patanjali speaks of the ideal Brahmin as being white with blond or red hair; in the Bhagavata Purana, it is said of Bahuka, the father of the Nisada class, being the children of Brahmin males and Sudra females, that "his complexion was as black as a crow's. All the limbs of his body were very short, his arms and legs were short, and his jaws were large. His nose was flat, his eyes were reddish, and his hair copper-colored." The Aryans had three classes among themselves and only added the Sudra after their conquest of the Indus Valley. The description of the dasa, the sudra and the nisada seem to overlap. It seems to refer to the Dravidian-speaking Australoid, although the references to Arya varna and the black varna in the Rig Veda may be subject to interpretation.

Anyway, when you do get back, I'd be interested in seeing a preliminary revision of the article.

Bodhidharma7 (talk) 17:00, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Reply by Hunnjaza: Sorry about the delay in responding Bodhidharma. I definitely want to pursue this discussion further but have to travel for some time. However, I don't want to hold this up. Please go ahead and make the agreed upon changes. I will trust your judgment and goodwill and not contest them. Will post on your talk page to round up our discussion once I am back. Best --Hunnjazal (talk) 19:14, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

References

Comment by JJ: interesting discussion. It's pretty obvious that the Dravidians were the ANI. If they were astraulian/negrito, then they were not the ANI. In that case, a nmajor population hided away from the Indo-Europeans for a thousand years (no ANI-loans in the Rig Veda), yet were able to mix with the ASI in a major way. Sounds pretty unlikely, right? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:40, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

ANI and 'before 12,500 years ago'

@Kautilya3: I've checked Metspalu 2011 again.This is what they say, regarding the 12,500 years (emphasis mine):

• "PC4 (or k5), distributed across the Indus Valley, Central Asia, and the Caucasus, might represent the genetic vestige of the ANI (Figure S2). However, within India the geographic cline (the distance from Baluchistan) of the Indus/Caucasus signal (PC4 or k5) is very weak, which is unexpected under the ASI-ANI model, according to which the ANI contribution should decrease as one moves to the south of the subcontinent." (p.739)
• "We found no regional diversity differences associated with k5 at K ¼ 8. Thus, regardless of where this component was from (the Caucasus, Near East, Indus Valley, or Central Asia), its spread to other regions must have occurred well before our detection limits at 12,500 years. Accordingly, the introduction of k5 to South Asia cannot be explained by recent gene flow, such as the hypothetical Indo-Aryan migration." (p.740)

So, this is not about ANI, but about a hypothesized, but weak, connection between k5 and ANI. I'll correct this throughout. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:04, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

I have removed the sentence; it's too thin. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:48, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

All but the Andaman people in India are the result of recent migrations

See Razib Khan (2015), Agriculture Came with Men to the Indian Subcontinent. Interesting. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:06, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Munda

Riccio et al. (2011), The Austroasiatic Munda population from India and Its enigmatic origin: a HLA diversity study:

"their peculiar genetic profile is better explained by a decrease in genetic diversity through genetic drift from an ancestral population having a genetic profile similar to present-day Austroasiatic populations from Southeast Asia (thus suggesting a possible southeastern origin), followed by intensive gene flow with neighboring Indian populations. This conclusion is in agreement with archaeological and linguistic information. The history of the Austroasiatic family represents a fascinating example where complex interactions among culturally distinct human populations occurred in the past."

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:08, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Sources on "Negrito"

Being uncomfortable with this term "Negrito," I've started looking for sources.

• Vishwanathan et al. (2004), Genetic structure and affinities among tribal populations of southern India: a study of 24 autosomal DNA markers, Annals of human genetics

• "The tribal groups constitute about 8% of the total Indian population and they “may represent relic populations of unknown origin but potentially of great genetic interest” (Cavalli-Sforza et al. 1994)." (Vishwanathan et al. (2004)
• "It has been argued that Africa may have made some direct genetic contribution to India, since some tribal populations in southern India possess phenotypic similarities with Africans, the so-called “Negrito” physical characteristics (Maloney, 1974; Saha et al. 1974; Roychoudhury, 1982; Chandler, 1988; Majumder, 1998)." (Vishwanathan et al. (2004)
• "It has also been suggested that at one time a “Negrito element” was widespread throughout India and was eventually forced into a more restricted location in south India (Majumder & Mukherjee, 1993)." (Vishwanathan et al. (2004)
• "In conclusion, the present study suggests that the tribal groups of southern India share a common ancestry, regardless of phenotypic characteristics, and are more closely related to other Indian groups than to African groups." (Vishwanathan et al. (2004)

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:15, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

We need to add some information regrading language-shift (to Dravidian/Indo-Aryan) of Austroasiatics during neolithc and post-neolothic period. 117.192.217.229 (talk) 20:33, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Totally agree, but also tricky, since it may be close to WP:OR. Not so much for language-shift to Indo-Aryan languages; but language-shift to Dravidian may be more complicated. Though, I do remember that I once read about a tribe that became 'Dravidianised.' And part of Sri Lanka, of course, was also 'Dravidianised' as late as the 11th (or was it the 10th?) century CE. 21:05, 27 March 2016 (UTC)Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk!

That tribe you are talking about is Veddas, they are an isolated linguistic group (not related to Dravidian or Indo-Aryan). They seem to be different from other groups, due to low M mtdna (17%) compared to Indian Tamils in Lanka who have (70%) M mtdna according this study.

Study : Mitochondrial DNA history of Sri Lankan ethnic people: their relations within the island and with the Indian subcontinental populations

"From the phylogenetic, principal coordinate and analysis of molecular variance results, the Vedda occupied a position separated from all other ethnic people of the island, who formed relatively close affiliations among themselves, suggesting a separate origin of the former. The haplotypes and analysis of molecular variance revealed that Vedda people’s mitochondrial sequences are more related to the Sinhalese and Sri Lankan Tamils’ than the Indian Tamils’ sequences."

Table 2. Haplogroup frequency in Sri Lankan population (Mtdna)

"It has been hypothesized that the Vedda was probably the earliest inhabitants of the area ... dated tentatively to 37 000 YBP, were discovered from the cave site, Fahien-lena,8 on the island, with their association with the present-day Vedda people proposed on a comparative anatomical ground ... Vedda population has the lowest proportion of shared haplotypes among their subgroups (63%) indicating their greater genetic diversity among subgroups ... Vedda people had the lowest frequency of haplogroup M (17.33%). It is quite astonishing to see such a lower frequency of M haplogroup in the Vedda population ... This is probably due to the effect of genetic drift in the smaller population of Vedda ... Vedda people ... showed relatively high frequencies of haplogroup R (45.33 ... Haplogroup U was mostly found in Vedda (29.33%) ... Low frequency of M haplogroup and high frequencies of R and U haplogroups were found to be the unique characteristics of Vedda ... All the island populations, except some subgroups of the Vedda, form close genetic affiliations among themselves and with majority of the groups from the mainland suggesting the origin of the majority of the island population on the Indian mainland." 117.192.217.229 (talk) 03:08, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Reich & the Andaman-islanders

Please... This is a quote from Reich et al. (2009); you can't just change quotes as you like. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 21:11, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Reich et al. (2009) and the dating of the peopling of the Andaman-islands

Haplogroups

I've removed the following "info," because Reich et al. (2009) mentions nothing about these haplogroups, not about these dates:

"Andamanese are unique in that they were the only population in the study that lacked Y-DNA Haplogroup CF and Haplogroup F. The authors thus suggest that the peopling of Andaman islands must have occurred before the appearance of Y-DNA Haplogroup CF and Haplogroup F and its descendants, around 60,000 ybp to 50,000 ybp."

References

The closest Reich gets to info like this is the following:

"Previous mtDNA analyses suggested that the Onge do not share any maternal ancestry with groups outside India within the last ,48,000 years19,39. Although the Onge do share ancestry with some rare haplogroups in some Indian tribal populations within the last ,24,000 years39,40, this observation is consistent with our inferred Onge–ASI clade, as long as the gene flow predated the ASI–ANI mixture that later occurred on the mainland."

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 21:23, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Ah, you copied it from Andamanese people. Next time you do so, please say so in your edit-summary. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 21:26, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

And IP 117.221.28.87 really screwed-up there, adding false "info". Was that you too? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 21:28, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, i copied and pasted it from Anamanese page but it does make sense that split between ASI and "Andamanese" component could have occurred between 50,000 to 40,000 years ago with the emergence of Haplogroup CF or Haplogorup F. This is because South Indian tribals are predominantly Y-haplogroup F, as oppose to the caste population.

Glacial period and Paleolithic revolution

• Regrading emergence of Haplogroup F time period is around 55,000 to 44,000 BCE. Architecture of First Societies: A Global Perspective By Mark M. Jarzombek .

" This genetic strand (Haplogroup F) developed around 50,000 BCE, not in Africa but probably in India and was center of dispersion cloud that radiated northward into Asia. Facilitating this movement was dramatic warming of the climate during the period 55,000 - 44,000 BCE that allowed people to return to the Levant after an absense of 40,000 years. From there, humans encountered a vast stretch of semi-arid, grass-covered plains stretching from eastern France to Korea that allowed movement throughout Asia, yielding new haplogroups such as K, I, J, O, and others. Humans were spreading so quickly and over such a diverse geograpcal range that no single natural disaster could now impede their progress."

• Here is the chart for tribal south indian Y-dna (forgers & hill tribes) who are predominantly Haplogroup F (73% to 23%) but notice the caste south indians (farmers, warriors, brahmins) who carry this haplogroup only (12% to 5%).

• This is from the study Population Differentiation of Southern Indian Male Lineages Correlates with Agricultural Expansions Predating the Caste System

" The geographical origins of many of these HGs are still debated. However, the associated high frequencies and haplotype variances of HGs H-M69, F*-M89, R1a1-M17, L1-M27, R2-M124 and C5-M356 within India, have been interpreted as evidence of an autochthonous origins of these lineages during late Pleistocene, while the lower frequency within the subcontinent of J2-M172, E-M96, G-M201 and L3-M357 are viewed as reflecting probable gene flow introduced from West Eurasian Holocene migrations in the last 10 Kya."

"F*-M89 was the only HG showing clear population-specific clusters among tribals (Paniya, Paliyan and Irula of HTF) suggesting long-term isolation"

• Here is the chart for tribal south indian Y-DNA from Population Differentiation of Southern Indian Male Lineages Correlates with Agricultural Expansions Predating the Caste System

This distinction of "ASI" and "Andamanese component" could have occurred between 50,000 to 40,000. 117.192.217.229 (talk) 01:15, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

10,000 years are gone with one edit... Think of all those children who suddenly are pushed out of existence! But serious: 50,000 to 40,000 sounds credible (I didn't check your links yet, except Jarzombek; you'd see Hugo Reyes-Centeno (2016), Out of Africa and into Asia: Fossil and genetic evidence on modern human origins and dispersals, ScienceDirect], but this is WP:OR, of course. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:13, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

It was 42,500 years ago when split between ASI, Proto, East-Asia and Andamans occurred according to Reich et al. His chart on page 40 explain migrations in detail from out of Africa to modern population. I have added it in below (page 40). We could add it in quotes under Ancestral components, explaining migrations. 117.192.217.229 (talk) 05:26, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

ASI and Andaman split

Why Andaman forms distinct, fifth component? It's split from ASI 42,500 years ago according to Reich et al. (This time period is also when Halpogroup F emerged in India.)

"These genomic analyses revealed two ancestral populations. "Different Indian groups have inherited forty to eighty percent of their ancestry from a population that we call the Ancestral North Indians who are related to western Eurasians, and the rest from the Ancestral South Indians, who are not related to any group outside India,"

Reich et al, (2009) divergence chart. <--- Look at this explained chart, it's from Figure 4 from Reich et al study, page number 40.

• 4,000 gens (100,000 yrs) ago Split of West African and Eurasian ancestors
• 2,000 gens (50,000 yrs) ago: Split of ANI and ASI ancestors
• 1,700 gens (42,500 yrs) ago: Split of Asian populations (‘proto-East Asia', ASI, and Andamanese/Onge)
• 600 gens (15,000 yrs) ago: Gene flow from ‘proto-East Asia' into the ancestral population of ANI and West Eurasians, so that the proto-West Eurasian/ANI mixture proportion is mP. Most of our simulations assume mP=100% (no gene flow), but we vary this parameter to test the robustness of our procedure if the ancestors of ANI and West Eurasians were mixed.
• 400 gens (10,000 yrs)ago: Split of CEU and Adygei
• 200 gens (5,000 yrs) ago: Age of the ancient mixture event that formed the Indian Cline."

As you can see, 42,500 years ago Proto-East Asian (AAA?), ASI and Andamanese split from 1,700 (42,000 yrs) generations ago and this is exactly around the time when CF and F emerged in South Asia.117.192.217.229 (talk) 01:15, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

References

That's a really nice chart! Ehm... You got it at one of these forums? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:22, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Chart is from Reich et al 2009, see page number 40. I'll linked it. https://genetics.med.harvard.edu/reich/Reich_Lab/Publications_files/2009_Nature_Reich_India_Supplementary.pdf

What's this Cp, this "Asian split" at 1,700 generations? Is this the Siberian connection? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:27, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

That is the split at 1,700 gens (42,000 yrs) ago when ASI, proto-east asia, Andamans split into different groups.117.192.217.229 (talk) 05:33, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

42k seems reasonable. Capitals00 (talk) 06:09, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Proto-East-Asia, thanks! Indeed, the Siberia-connection. And also the reason why Metspalu (2011) wrote that the Indo-Aryans should have introduced an Asian component, if they were the ANI. Which leaves the Harappans to be the ANI; but that's a different discussion. Though, for the nationalists among us: I think there's a lot of continuity between Harappans, BMAC, Indo-Aryans and India after ca. 1,000/500 BCE. Those Indo-Aryans were not blood-thirsty vandals, but groups of migrants who were laready acquainted with non-Indo-European cultures. But as I said, that's another doucssion. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:18, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Proto-East-Asia, is not Siberian connection. Proto-East-Asian is not synonymous to East Asian. "Proto-East-Asia" gene flew into ANI and split again creating modern East Asian population. Kannadiga (talk) 06:22, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Haak et al. (2015); see also Yamna culture:

"Autosomal tests also indicate that the Yamnaya are the most likely vector for "Ancient North Eurasian" admixture into Europe. "Ancient North Eurasian" is the name given in literature to the genetic component which represents descent from the people of the Mal'ta-Buret' culture, or some other people closely related to it. That genetic component is visible in tests of the Yamna people as well as modern-day Europeans, but not of Europeans predating the Bronze Age."

References

• Haak, W. (2015). "Massive migration from the steppe was a source for Indo-European languages in Europe". Nature. doi:10.1038/nature14317. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

Correct me if I'm wrong. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:33, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Reich et al is not clear about Proto-East Asian, it could be basal to something East related because Andamanese's Y-DNA is found mostly among East Asians. Basu et al mentions AAA being one of ASI split groups, that's what i have in mind. If you're wondering what CEU is then it's central european.

• It makes sense that it could be related to Kannadiga (talk) 17:02, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Additional info from Reich et al. (2009)

@Joshua Jonathan, we need to add new section titled "Early migrations" or "peopling of eurasia" before "Ancestral Components" based on reich et al diversions and formation of "Indian Cline". Kannadiga (talk) 09:05, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

You mean, like re-ordering some of the information? Good to see your a username here! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:55, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Reply by Kannadiga (Pebble101):

1. We could maybe add section for reich et al's early human diversions timeline that i added here, before Ancestral components. [1]

2. 'Proto-East-Asia' is some kind of basal east-asian, because Andamanese Y-DNA D is mostly found among East-Asian related groups outside Andaman today.

3. ASI seems to have further evolved in mainland subcontinent after it's related groups Andaman & Proto-east-asia split, likely with emergence of Y-DNA F which is dominant among tribal south Indians as mentioned here[2]

4. In Glacial period and Paleolithic revolution, we need to add this first point[3] regrading dispensation of F and it's descendants during post Glacial period.

5. I have re-worded & updated this in Ancestral components based on Reich et al study : According to Reich et al. (2009), ASI, 'Proto-East-Asia' and Andaman islanders split around 42,500 years ago. Andamanese were unique in that they were the only population in the study without ANI ancestry.Kannadiga (talk) 19:48, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Wow! You're putting me on some additional homework! But, that's nice; I like it to be challenged.

ad 1: that's a very good idea. I'd never seen tbis additional material, and I'm glad the chart comes from Reich himself (additional material p.40). I'd love to use it, but I guess it's copy-righted, so we'll have to redraw it ourselves, I'm afraid. And I'll have to read that stuff. But it's really a great chart!

ad 2: this is the split between Europeans and Asians? Makes sense.

ad 3: yes, I figured that too. It's also what several authors wrote - but I don't have references at hand...

ad 4: did you read the link to this theory on 'Out of Africa into the Arabian vestibule'? Dienekes blogspot adheres to the same theory. The/an alternative theory is a back-migration from India to Europe, isn't it, as Jarzombek claims? I don't know if Jarzombek is right (I guess not), but it's fascinating point, for which we need additional sources. More homework to do!

ad 5: I reverted you there, because Recih et al. (2009) p.489 does not make that point. Now that I know it's based on the additional material, I understand. But you'll have to properly source it!

Best regards, and thanks for the additional material, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:10, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Ah, and now I see what you mean with adding a new section based on Reich. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:15, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Ad 1: copyrights for Nature: publishing licences and permission requests. And via NCBI (emphasis mine):

"Wholesale re-publishing is prohibited

3. Archived content may not be published verbatim in whole or in part, whether or not this is done for Commercial Purposes, either in print or online.

4. This restriction does not apply to reproducing normal quotations with an appropriate citation. In the case of text-mining, individual words, concepts and quotes up to 100 words per matching sentence may be reused, whereas longer paragraphs of text and images cannot (without specific permission from NPG)."

So, we'll have to draw it ourselves. Shouldn't be too difficult, though. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:31, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Reply by Kannadiga:

• To your question "this is the split between Europeans and Asians?" 50,000 years ago there was a split between Europe (ANI) and Asian (ASI). Later, Asian population split into 'Proto-east-asia', ASI, and Andamans 42,500 years ago.
• I can make the map if you want me to but we need to add various additional sources before we do it. There is not much info in Glacial period and Paleolithic revolution but sources for this can be found in here Haplogroup F-M89.
• I have added source and page for my edit (regrading splitting of asians).
• We should unify Basu et al hidden notes into one note, along with the one next to AAA (it still forms it's own component). We can have two hidden notes, one for Reich et al and one for Basu et al, rather than two notes just for Basu et al.
• Regrading note next to AAA - It still forms it's own component even if it's split from ASI. Base et al treats it as such, it's four components, not three. Hidden-note next to AAA seems to be repeat of already added hidden-note in last paragraph of that section. Kannadiga (talk) 21:31, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the edit. I have to think about the notes, or you do it. I get the impression that you are a very fast thinker, even faster than I am; and I am already above the average... The downside of fast thinking is that you have to explain yourself to others, lest you lose them on the way. That's boring, I know; but the reward is great, if you can learn to "translate." Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:03, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Looks like you have done it yourself, faster than me. I seem to be the average one here. Kannadiga (talk) 01:32, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

To be clear, this is our to-do list?

• Merge notes
• Add additional Reich-info, including chart
• Learn more about the ASI-differentiation
• Learn more about the the split between Europeans and Asians
• Learn more about the Arabian/Indian vestibule

I start with reading the additional Reich-info; in between I've got some real life work to do too, of course... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:24, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, I will find more sources for each topic next few weeks so we can build upon that. Kannadiga (talk) 01:32, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Merge notes

I've merged the doublure-notes. Yet, I think that Basu et al. (2016) are wrong on proposing that the AAA are early sttlers in India; Holocene settlement seems more likely. See also the Munda people. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:02, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I think AAA could represent various waves of migrations rather than just Holocene. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kannadiga (talk • contribs)

Maybe; but then, maybe not. One of those blogs stated that AA sprwad with rice-farming; when we speak of AAA, it's locus of origin may well be southeast Asia, not India. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:13, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Additional Reich-info

File:Reich (2009) Ancestry Estimation Chart.png

Reich (2009 - Additional Material) Ancestry Estimation Chart (p.40)

Here's the chart. But, without time-estimates; Reich doesn't mention the number of years per generation. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:38, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

And, without time-estimates, I don't think that this chart adds additional info. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:04, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, that chart is good. I agree it does not add additional information but reich et al's early human diversions gives a good idea on how the Indian Cline formed and it could be useful? Perhaps, we could add it in hidden-note somewhere but it's up to you. Kannadiga (talk) 01:32, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree it could be usefull, to provide info on the formation of the Indian cline. NB: the additional info also says:

"The demographic parameters were chosen to roughly mimic parameters that emerged from previous studies of human historical expansions and contractions [15]."

The source is: Keinan A, Mullikin JC, Patterson N, Reich D (2007) Measurement of the human allele frequency spectrum demonstrates greater genetic drift in East Asians than in Europeans. Nat Genet. 39, 1251-1255. I guess we'll have to look there for their info, and eventual dates. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:07, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

It's not int he article itself, so I'll guess it's in the supplementary notes. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:43, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

ASI-differentiation

• Munda/AA:

• Razib Khan (2013), Phylogenetics implies Austro-Asiatic are intrusive to India
• Munda As Intrusive To India

• Basu et al. (2016):

• Dienekes blogspot (2016), History of extant populations of India, see the comments to that post
• Eurogenes blogpsot (2016), http://eurogenes.blogspot.nl/2016/01/four-major-ancestries-in-mainland-india.html, see the comments

• Moorjani (2013):

• Historical Linguistics and Population Genetics

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:58, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

The Munda are intrusive to India; Dravidian languages diverted fairly recently. So, ASI would be the first inhabitants, who evolved further, and/or plus early migrations from Austroasiatics from southeast Asia. Can we ever know exactly? NB: how large (small) was the ASI-population, compared to the fast-growing agricultural ANI-population? That is: ASI may have existed for millennia in small groups, while the ANI came fairly recently and/but in large groups Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:15, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree with with you, ASI are first inhabitants and ASI further evolved in mainland subcontinent. Some AAA could have stayed in India after split while some might have migrated back into India in multiple waves from Southeast Asia before and after on set of rice-farming which is believed to be have been introduced from Southeast Asia into India. Kannadiga (talk) 01:32, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

• We can see from this Moorjani et al - Chart that "AAA" speaking Indians seems to have closest pull towards Onge component.
• This chart from from Anthrogenica also seems to show AAA's pull towards Onge component.
• It seems that I-E and DR speakers in India somewhat cluster together due to ANI & ASI admixture. AAA seems like an outliner group with pull towards Onge component.Kannadiga (talk) 03:52, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

The original migrants to India probably wouldn't look very different from the original migrants to anywhere else. They were coastal people who didn't venture inland. They are most likely to be like the Andamanese.

Kannadiga what do the PC1 and PC2 mean in the "Moorjani et al - Chart"? (Make sure that you distinguish between AA, which is a language family, and AAA, which is a hypothetical genome.) -- Kautilya3 (talk) 07:52, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

• Yes, I understand but i was trying to make a point about what Base et al says how AAA and ASI are related. I was trying to say AAA & ASI have been in contact after their split, as Base et al claims the split between ASI and AAA occurred in India.
• That Moorjani et al - Chart shows how I-E & DR Indians cluster together because of their ANI & ASI admixture, while AA speakers in India form their own "component" with close pull towards Onge component. This shows that Base et al (2016) is right regrading AAA & ASI being related.Kannadiga (talk) 20:19, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Publications

A Google-Scholar search on negrito austroasiatic india from 2010 onwards alone yet gives 194 hits. Some highlights:

"Negrito" overview

• Introduction: Revisiting the “Negrito” Hypothesis: A Transdisciplinary Approach to Human Prehistory in Southeast Asia:

"The consensus reached by the contributors to this special double issue of Human Biology is that there is not yet conclusive evidence either for or against the negrito hypothesis."

• Concluding Remarks. What's in a Name? “Negritos” in the Context of the Human Prehistory of Southeast Asia:

"The evidence presented in this double issue of Human Biology speaks more against the category of “negrito” than for it."

"Negrito" specific

• Benjamin (2013), Why Have the Peninsular “Negritos” Remained Distinct?, Human Biology 2013, nr. 1-3:

"If the phenotype is many (as now seems likely), it must have resulted from parallel evolution in the several different regions where it has been claimed to exist. This would suggest (contrary to certain views that have been expressed on the basis of very partial genetic data) that the phenotype originated recently and by biologically well-authenticated processes from within the neighboring populations. Whole-genome and physical-anthropological research currently support this view."

• Terror from the Sky: Unconventional Linguistic Clues to the Negrito Past:

"Given prehistoric language shifts among both Philippine and Malayan negritos, the prospects of determining whether disparate negrito populations were once a linguistically or culturally unified community would appear hopeless. Surprisingly, however, some clues to a common negrito past do survive in a most unexpected way."

Andaman Islands

• Chaubey and Endicott (2013), The Andaman Islanders in a Regional Genetic Context: Reexamining the Evidence for an Early Peopling of the Archipelago from South Asia, Human Biology 85 (1-3):

- "these estimates suggest that the Andamans were settled less than ~26 ka and that differentiation between the ancestors of the Onge and Great Andamanese commenced in the Terminal Pleistocene." (p.167)

- "In conclusion, we find no support for the settlement of the Andaman Islands by a population descending from the initial out-of-Africa migration of humans, or their immediate descendants in South Asia. It is clear that, overall, the Onge are more closely related to Southeast Asians than they are to present-day South Asians." (p.167)

- "At the current level of genetic resolution, however, there is no evidence of a single ancestral population for the different groups traditionally defined as “negritos.”" (p.168)

• Wang et al. (2011), Mitochondrial DNA evidence supports northeast Indian origin of the aboriginal Andamanese in the Late Paleolithic, Journal of Genetics and Genomics, Volume 38, Issue 3, 20 March 2011, Pages 117–122:

"the Andaman archipelago was likely settled by modern humans from northeast India via the land-bridge which connected the Andaman archipelago and Myanmar around the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM), a scenario in well agreement with the evidence from linguistic and palaeoclimate studies."

Austroasiatic

• Kumar et al. (2007), Y-chromosome evidence suggests a common paternal heritage of Austro-Asiatic populations], Evol Biol. 2007; 7: 47. doi: 10.1186/1471-2148-7-47
• Goerge van Driem (2007), Austroasiatic phylogeny and the Austroasiatic homeland in light of recent population genetic studies:

"the mitochondrial picture indicates that the Munda maternal lineage derives from the earliest human settlers on the Subcontinent, whilst the predominant Y chromosome haplogroup argues for a Southeast Asian paternal homeland for Austroasiatic language communities in India." (p.7)

• Reddy & Kumar (2008), Origins of the Austro-Asiatic Populations:

" We infer a common paternal origin of Austro-Asiatics and the migration of paternal ancestors of Austro-Asiatic populations from East to South Asia, followed by the origin of Austro-Asiatic languages which subsequently spread to Southeast Asia, with primarily male-mediated migrations."

• Chaubey et al. (2010), Population Genetic Structure in Indian Austroasiatic speakers: The Role of Landscape Barriers and Sex-specific Admixture, Mol Biol Evol (2010) doi: 10.1093/molbev/msq288:

"We propose that AA speakers in India today are derived from dispersal from Southeast Asia, followed by extensive sex-specific admixture with local Indian populations."

• Immanuel Ness (2014), The Global Prehistory of Human Migration, section Austroasiatic (p.264-267)
• Arunkumar et al. (2015), A late Neolithic expansion of Y chromosomal haplogroup O2a1-M95 from east to west, Journal of Systematics and Evolution, Volume 53, Issue 6, pages 546–560, November 2015, DOI: 10.1111/jse.12147:

"Y-Chromosomal haplogroup O2a1-M95, distributed across the Austro Asiatic speaking belt of East and South Asia [...] 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."

• Miguel Vilar (2015), DNA Reveals Unknown Ancient Migration Into India, National Geographic:

"“Since O2a1 is accepted as the founding lineage of Austro-Asiatic languages (a group of related languages from Southeast Asia), the origin and spread of this lineage gives clues on the history of these speakers and the region. Our study shows a clear decrease in age and diversity of haplogorup O2a1 from Laos to East India, suggesting an east to west spread out of Southeast Asia,” explains Dr. ArunKumar about his findings."

South Asia

• Thangaraj, Complex genetic origin of Indian populations and its implications
• The Ancient Indian Populations Were Not Homogenous

Southeast Asia

• Jared Diamond, Population history: Human melting pots in southeast Asia:

"If the phenotype is many (as now seems likely), it must have resulted from parallel evolution in the several different regions where it has been claimed to exist. This would suggest (contrary to certain views that have been expressed on the basis of very partial genetic data) that the phenotype originated recently and by biologically well-authenticated processes from within the neighboring populations. Whole-genome and physical-anthropological research currently support this view."

East Asia

• The Human Genetic History of East Asia: Weaving a Complex Tapestry

At first sight, these publications seem to argue for a complex genetical and migrational history, which questions the straightforward existence of a "negrito" component. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:15, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Andaman Islands

Ah, what a joy to read the literature! See Chaubey and Endicott (2013) and Wang et al. (2011) above: the Andaman Islands were populated at "less than ~26 ka," around the latest Glacial Maximum, and not by direct descendents of the first Out-of-Africa wave. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:10, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Austroasiatic

Well, there's a lot more than I'd expected. And it all, except for Basu et al. (2016), clearly points to a Holocene migration of Austroasiatic speakers from southeast Asia to India. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:46, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

ANI and ASI admixture time period

I found this interesting information that could be helpful regrading ASI and ANI mixture, quote is from Moorjani et al.[4]

Moorjani et al 2013 "It is also important to emphasize what our study has not shown. Although we have documented evidence for mixture in India between about 1,900 and 4,200 years BP, this does not imply migration from West Eurasia into India during this time. On the contrary, a recent study that searched for West Eurasian groups most closely related to the ANI ancestors of Indians failed to find any evidence for shared ancestry between the ANI and groups in West Eurasia within the past 12,500 years. An alternative possibility that is also consistent with our data is that the ANI and ASI were both living in or near South Asia for a substantial period prior to their mixture. Such a pattern has been documented elsewhere; for example, ancient DNA studies of northern Europeans have shown that Neolithic farmers originating in Western Asia migrated to Europe about 7,500 years BP but did not mix with local hunter gatherers until thousands of years later to form the present-day populations of northern Europe."

This could mean ANI (after splitting from West Eurasians) ASI were living in or near south asia some 12,000 years ago but did not mix until much later. Kannadiga (talk) 01:32, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Moorjani's statement needs to be qualified. See Talk:Peopling of India#ANI and 'before 12,500 years ago' and Talk:Indo-Aryan migration theory#Moorjani (2013) and Kivisild (1999). Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:32, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Kannadiga's bold faced stuff has to be taken with a pinch of salt. There are two kinds of analyses being performed right now. Population genetics approaches, done by Metspalu & co and a whole bunch of other groups, try to target isolated haplogroups. In contrast, the analysis of Reich Lab and Basu (2014) is full-genome analysis and is much more sophisticated. However, they don't have full genome databases of the populations surrounding India in order to identify where the ANI could have come from. And I haven't seen firm connections between concepts like ANI found in the full genome analysis and the haplogroups they talk about in population genetics research. So what is known about the origins of ANI is very little. I think Moorjani et al (2013) jumped the gun a bit in trying to draw conclusions from limited knowledge. We should ignore it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:25, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Split between Europeans and Asians

This topic belongs to Peopling of the world, I think. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:07, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Arabian/Indian vestibule

This topic too belongs to Peopling of the world. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:11, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree, if it's necessary we should think about adding reich et al diversions in hidden-note/or hidden text somewhere appropriate. Kannadiga (talk) 01:32, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

for hidden text

4,000 gens ago Split of West African and Eurasian ancestors 2,000 gens ago: Split of Europe(ANI) and Asia(ASI) ancestors 1,700 gens ago: Split of Asian populations ‘proto-East Asia', ASI, and Onge (Andamanese) 600 gens ago: Gene flow from ‘proto-East Asia' into the ancestral population of ANI and West Eurasians, so that the proto-West Eurasian/ANI mixture proportion is mP. Most of our simulations assume mP=100% (no gene flow), but we vary this parameter to test the robustness of our procedure if the ancestors of ANI and West Eurasians were mixed. 400 gens ago: Split of CEU (Europeans) and Adygei(Caucasus) 200 gens ago: Age of the ancient mixture event that formed the Indian Cline.

New studies

Please look at the following new study. Add relevant info to article.--Nizil (talk) 13:49, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

• Blinkhorn, James; Ajithprasad, P.; Mukherjee, Avinandan (2017-05-16). "Did Modern Human Dispersal Take a Coastal Route into India? New Evidence from Palaeolithic Surveys of Kachchh, Gujarat". Journal of Field Archaeology. 0 (0): 1–16. doi:10.1080/00934690.2017.1323543. ISSN 0093-4690.

Ancient DNA studies

@MomotaniSS: What was the POV there? Only POV i saw there what you were pushing. Mondal et al 2017 study is as relevent as pre aDNA studies, which contradicts everything what recent Ancient DNA genetics has found. Y-DNA R2 was also found by Lazardidi et al study in Iran_Neolithic people. You also changed Shinde et al. 2019 study specifically wording East Siberian to East Asian when he says no such thing. Ilber8000 (talk) 18:12, 10 January 2020 (UTC) :The claim “...is as relevent as pre aDNA studies...” is POV for example. You can not decide what is relevant or not. Also this large scale structure changes should be discussed l. Why you add the new content not to the existing subsections?MomotaniSS (talk) 18:17, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

We actually know since aDNA lazaridie et al. 2014 and 2018 study that South Asians are not related to Southern Europeans or Levant (Anatolian shifted poplation), and that South Asians are relatated to (Iranian farmer-shifted population). They are very distinct farmer populations in ancestry as well. Both Narashiman and Shinde's aDNA study mentions this, specifically.Ilber8000 (talk) 18:21, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

@MondtaniSS: - I just went through the Mondol study and It specifically talks about Y-DNA clads being closer to Southern Europe and Levant, It says nothing about Indians being closer to them, neither nuclear DNA or autosumal DNA.

the closest neighbours of Indian clades in our dataset are generally from Southern Europe (and not other European populations), a place known to have had more influence from the first Neolithic expansion from the Levant through Anatolia and less from the steppe migration which was perhaps responsible for the Indo-European expansion of languages in Europe; the future availability of ancient Y-chromosome sequences and reanalysis after merging available data from Western Asia will help to better interpret this finding

— Mondal et al. 2017

This study is specifically about Y-DNA, your misinterpretation of the study is POV. It does NOT say Indians are closer to Southern Europe or Levant. No wonder I was suprised by what you were suggesting as it goes against everything we have known since aDNA study, you misinterpreted the study. Ilber8000 (talk) 18:43, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

I've struck through MomotaniSS's article as they were a block-evading sock, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/WorldCreaterFighter Doug Weller talk 14:20, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. He has added additional recent edits on there which is not mentioned in the provided source (no mention of Turkic or Austronesian admixture in Indians/Lankans in provided studies) along with pov interpretations. I'll be undoing them. Ilber8000 (talk) 21:04, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: He seems to be back and evading ban.

• 154.49.100.66 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 154.49.100.42 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 154.49.100.50 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

I think he is IP hopping? Ilber8000 (talk) 18:37, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

@Ilber8000: I've blocked the range. Doug Weller talk 18:56, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: he seems to be back again and IP hopping, similar vandalism. Ilber8000 (talk) 05:17, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

• 81.10.217.91 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 117.254.65.252 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

@Ilber8000: they've stopped, let me know if it starts again. Doug Weller talk 15:39, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: and @Ilber8000: They seem to be back, now in the Dravidian peoples page. See [[5]]. I reverted them (with notes, see [[6]]) but they may be back soon.

Edit: They are back on the Dravidian peoples page and have reinstated at least one of their edits (and like at least one previous IP sock that is likely the same person, they seem to be fond of the phrase "Look it up). Skllagyook (talk) 14:39, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

What are you doing, Dravidian people is a different article, I did not read this. Anyway, for paternal lineages it is relevant. How it can be excluded when it is a accurate study? It was also included by Fylindfotberserk in Genetics of South Asia in the sepecific paternal section. Can you explain why it should not be included?149.7.35.178 (talk) 14:43, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: and @Ilber8000: Update: The IP was blocked (for sock puppeting and disruptive editing). Skllagyook (talk) 19:02, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

@Skllagyook: good, I hadn't ignored your plea, by the way. I was checking with someone else. As they were using a colocation host, it seems certain they were a sock. Doug Weller talk 19:08, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Shinde et al. 2019

@Ilber8000: Hello. I can't seem to the find place in Shinde et al. 2019 containing the passage quoted below:

The only fitting two-way models were mixtures of a group related to herders from the western Zagros mountains of Iran and also to either Andamanese hunter-gatherers or East Siberian hunter-gatherers (the fact that the latter two populations both fit reflects that they have the same phylogenetic relationship to the non-West Eurasian-related component likely due to shared ancestry deeply in time)

Do you know on what page of the study this appears? I cannot seem to find it, but only the images showing a common ancestry/descent between the South Asian hunter-gatherer population (AASI) and the Andamanese. Here is a link to the full study: [7] and another link (with better resolution): [8]

Thank you, Skllagyook (talk) 02:29, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

@Skllagyook: It's right on page 3 in that link you posted. [9]

If one of these population fits, it does not mean it is the true source; instead, it means that it and the true source population are consistent with descending without mixture from the same homogeneous ancestral population that poten-tially lived thousands of years before. The only fitting two-way models were mixtures of a group related to herders from the western Zagros mountains of Iran and also to either Andamanese hunter-gatherers (73% ± 6% Iranian-related ancestry; p = 0.103 for overall model fit) or East Siberian hunter-gatherers (63% ± 6% Iranian-related ancestry; p = 0.24) (the fact that the latter two populations both fit reflects that they have the same phylogenetic relationship to the non-West Eurasian-related component of I6113 likely due to shared ancestry deeply in time)

Ilber8000 (talk) 15:50, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

@Ilber8000: Ah, I see it now. Thank you. Skllagyook (talk) 16:08, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Chronological order of info

• I've moved the ANI_ASI downwards, to create a more chronological order. Some of it's info could be moved further to other places.
• This section, by the way, contains a lot of doublures.
• The Iranian neolithic farmer hypothesis has to be adjusted, given Narasimhan et al. (2019) and Shinde et al. (2019)
• The Holocene section is now very short, but can serve as an introductory overview. Da Silva et al. (2017), A genetic chronology for the Indian Subcontinent points to heavily sex-biased dispersals should be mentioned; they argue for various post-glacial, pre-farmer migrations into South Asia. This collaborates the early date of western Eurasian ancestry in South Asia, found by Narasimhan et al. (2019) and Shinde et al. (2019)

I'm a bit in a hurry now, but I'll work on this further. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:31, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan: Thank you, the Negrito section and Andamanese people page also needs some clean up. It's all repetition. Ilber8000 (talk) 22:30, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Done. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:57, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

LGM

LGM section: Silva et al (2018) study claims mtdna N1a1b1 arrived from Near East during 21 ybp and further Near Eastern mtdna clades W4, HV + 16311!, HV12b,I1, U7a and J1b1b1 spread to South Asia in the Late Glacial period, 16–13 ka (4.5% of west eurasian mtdna in their dataset). But, they're data-set includes Baloch & Jewish Indians who are medieval migrants, and they point out they carry near eastern ancestry but (in contrast) the study says South Asians do not carry Near Eastern ancestry "However, this component is virtually absent in other South Asians (including Muslims) except for Jewish groups". They don't specify which South Asian group carries this N1a1b1 mtdna for some reason, which would be very helpful. I'll remove this for time being considering Shinde et al gives 13kya as arrival time frame for west eurasian ancestry based on Rakhigarhi aDNA. Ilber8000 (talk) 06:41, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Shinde et al. (2019) & Narasinhan et al. (2019)

User:Abhishek0831996 removed diff info about the origins of the IVC-people, edit-summary

arguments about IVC have been already covered in above section, also see Talk:Indus_Valley_Civilisation/Archive_5#Narasimhan_et_al._(2018) for earlier discussion

The "above section" is an intro; not really a good reason to remove the info introduced by that intro. The linked discussion is about the inclusion of the sentence According to the latest genetic findings: "Indus Periphery-related people are the single most important source of ancestry in South Asia." in the lead of Indus Valley Civilisation; the reliability of preprints; and the reliability of "Indus periphery" samples as a stand-in for actual IVC-samples to make such a statement in the lead. Narasimhan (2019) is the peer-reviewed version; Shinde et al. (2019) is about the Rakhigari-sample. The removed info summarizes their findings on the composition of the genetic ancestry of the IVC-people. The relevance of the linked discussion is unclear; the relevant policies would be WP:RS (including WP:RSCONTEXT), WP:NPOV, WP:DUE, and WP:AGEMATTERS. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:26, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Peopling of India

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Peopling of India's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "auto2":

• From Adivasi: "Museums for Tribal Freedom Fighters". pib.gov.in.
• From Genetics and archaeogenetics of South Asia: Yelmen B, Mondal M, Marnetto D, Pathak AK, Montinaro F, Gallego Romero I, et al. (August 2019). "Ancestry-Specific Analyses Reveal Differential Demographic Histories and Opposite Selective Pressures in Modern South Asian Populations". Molecular Biology and Evolution. 36 (8): 1628–1642. doi:10.1093/molbev/msz037. PMC 6657728. PMID 30952160.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 02:53, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Oldest human fossil

Here it's written that the Balangoda Man is the oldest human fossil found in South Asia, but shouldn't it be the Sarai Nahar Rai Man SwagatamSarkar1 (talk) 18:32, 30 April 2024 (UTC)