Jump to content

User:Joshua Jonathan/Genetic research on the origins of India's population

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page contains an overview and assessment of research DNA-research of India's population. It is not a regular article, but an aid and reference for several articles on India's history.

Kivisild et al. (1999), Deep common ancestry of Indian and western-Eurasian mitochondrial DNA lineages

[edit]

Publication:

  • Kivisild et al. (1999), Deep common ancestry of Indian and western-Eurasian mitochondrial DNA lineages, Curr. Biol. 9, 1331-1334 pdf

Abstract:
"About a fifth of the human gene pool belongs largely either to Indo-European or Dravidic speaking people inhabiting the Indian peninsula. The ‘Caucasoid share’ in their gene pool is thought to be related predominantly to the Indo-European speakers. A commonly held hypothesis, albeit not the only one, suggests a massive Indo-Aryan invasion to India some 4,000 years ago [1]. Recent limited analysis of maternally inherited mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) of Indian populations has been interpreted as supporting this concept [2,3]. Here, this interpretation is questioned. We found an extensive deep late Pleistocene genetic link between contemporary Europeans and Indians, provided by the mtDNA haplogroup U, which encompasses roughly a fifth of mtDNA lineages of both populations. Our estimate for this split is close to the suggested time for the peopling of Asia and the first expansion of anatomically modern humans in Eurasia [4–8] and likely pre-dates their spread to Europe. Only a small fraction of the ‘Caucasoid-specific’ mtDNA lineages found in Indian populations can be ascribed to a relatively recent admixture." pdf

Quotes:

  • "Only a small fraction of the ‘Caucasoid-specific’ mtDNA lineages found in Indian populations can be ascribed to a relatively recent admixture." pdf
  • "... two separate late Pleistocene migrations of modern humans to India." pdf p.1334

Assessment/commentary by Wikipedia-editors:
Kivisild et al. state:

"Only a small fraction of the ‘Caucasoid-specific’ mtDNA lineages found in Indian populations can be ascribed to a relatively recent admixture." pdf

Compare this statement to Moorjani et al. (2013), who refer to this paper stating:

"... 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." Moorjani et al. 2013 pdf, p.430

So, in contrast to what Moorjani et al. state, according to Kivisild et al. (1999) there are also traces of relatively recent admixture! Compare also Kivisild et al. (2000), An Indian Ancestry:

"... the sum of any recent (the last 15,000 years) western mtDNA gene flow to India comprises, in average, less than 10 per cent of the contemporary Indian mtDNA lineages. " Kivisild et al. (2000), An Indian Ancestry, p.271 (referring to Kivisild et al. (1999), "Deep common ancestry").

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:06, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Barnshad et al. (2001), Genetic Evidence on the Origins of Indian Caste Populations

[edit]

Publication:

  • Barnshad et al. (2001), Genetic Evidence on the Origins of Indian Caste Populations, Genome Res. 2001. 11: 994-1004 full text

Abstract:

Quotes:

  • "the affinity to Europeans is proportionate to caste rank, the upper castes being most similar to Europeans, particularly East Europeans. These findings are consistent with greater West Eurasian male admixture with castes of higher rank." full text
  • "We conclude that Indian castes are most likely to be of proto-Asian origin with West Eurasian admixture resulting in rank-related and sex-specific differences in the genetic affinities of castes to Asians and Europeans." full text

Assessment/commentary by Wikipedia-editors:

Gyaneshwer Chaubey et al. (2008), Language Shift by Indigenous Population

[edit]

Publication:

  • Gyaneshwer Chaubey et al. (2008), Language Shift by Indigenous Population: A Model Genetic Study in South Asia, Int J Hum Genet, 8(1-2): 41-50 (2008) pdf

Summary:
"Language shift is a phenomenon where a new language is adopted by a population with virtually no influence on its genetic makeup. We report here the results of a case study, carried out on the Mushar populations, which is thought to have undergone language shift from Munda (an Austro-Asiatic language) to Hindi (an IndoEuropean language). We compared the mtDNA and Y-chromosomal phylogenies of this population with those of the neighbouring Indo-European and Austro-Asiatic speaking populations, standing at similar social status. The results revealed much closer genetic affinity of the Mushar people to the neighbouring Austro-Asiatic (Mundari) populations, than to the neighbouring Hindi-speaking populations. This example shows that the language shift as such is not necessarily a signal for a rapid genetic admixture, either maternally or paternally." [1]

Quotes:

  • "language shift as such is not necessarily a signal for a rapid genetic admixture, either maternally or paternally." [2]

Assessment/commentary by Wikipedia-editors:

Reich, Thangaraj et al. 2009, Reconstructing Indian Population History

[edit]

Publication

[edit]

Publication:

Summary:
"We analyse 25 diverse groups in India to provide strong evidence for two ancient populations, genetically divergent, that are ancestral to most Indians today. One, the ‘Ancestral North Indians’ (ANI), is genetically close to Middle Easterners, Central Asians, and Europeans, whereas the other, the ‘Ancestral South Indians’ (ASI), is as distinct from ANI and East Asians as they are from each other. By introducing methods that can estimate ancestry without accurate ancestral populations, we show that ANI ancestry ranges from 39–71% in most Indian groups, and is higher in traditionally upper caste and Indo-European speakers." abstract

Quotes:

  • "We analyze 25 diverse groups to provide strong evidence for two ancient populations, genetically divergent, that are ancestral to most Indians today. One, the “Ancestral North Indians” (ANI), is genetically close to Middle Easterners, Central Asians, and Europeans, while the other, the “Ancestral South Indians” (ASI), is as distinct from ANI and East Asians as they are from each other."
  • "Many Indian and European groups speak Indo-European languages, while the Adygei speak a Northwest Caucasian language. It is tempting to hypothesize that the population ancestral to ANI and CEU spoke “Proto-Indo-European”, which has been reconstructed as ancestral to both Sanskrit and European languages38, although we cannot be certain without a date for ANI-ASI mixture."
  • "The stronger gradient in males, replicating previous reports, could reflect either male gene flow from groups with more ANI relatedness into ones with less, or female gene flow in the reverse direction. However, extensive female gene flow in India would be expected to homogenize ANI ancestry on the autosomes just as in mtDNA, which we do not observe. Supporting the view of little female ANI ancestry in India, Kivisild et al.44 reported that mtDNA ‘haplogroup U’ splits into two deep clades. ‘U2i’ accounts for 77% of copies in India but ~0% in Europe, and ‘U2e’ accounts for 0% of all copies in India but ~10% in Europe. The split is ~50,000 years old, indicating low female gene flow between Europe and India since that time."

Assessment/commentary by Wikipedia-editors:
This fits in perfectly fine with the idea that male elite groups brought the Indo-European languages and culture into India, as proposed by Anthony and Beckwith: the males migrated and married local women. The pidgin languages that their children spoke gave rise to the variety of Indo-European languages. The IEMt/IAMt does not speak about large groups of people moving around, so the lack of genetic changes fits into the theory. It speaks about linguistic and cultural change. Small (elite) groups can effect great changes. David Anthony and Michael Witzel have given some explanations for this; see Indo-Aryan migration hypothesis#Anthropology: elite recruitment. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:55, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

This is telling us something very very strong. Little female ANI in India. That means all the ANI DNA in India comes from male intruders! Not necessarily small elite groups, could have been major groups of populations too. (This overrides my comment at the bottom, which assumed that ANI native to India, and just started mixing with ASI in 2,200 BC. But, if there is no female ANI DNA in India, then ANI could not have been native to India!) Kautilya3 (talk) 19:25, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Press-coverage

[edit]

Elie Dolgin (2009), Indian ancestry revealed, Nature

[edit]

Publication:

  • Elie Dolgin (2009), Indian ancestry revealed, Nature full text

Quotes:

  • "The population of India was founded on two ancient groups that are as genetically distinct from each other as they are from other Asians, according to the largest DNA survey of Indian heritage to date." full text
  • "Indian populations, although currently huge in number, were also founded by relatively small bands of individuals, the study suggests." full text
  • "Overall, the picture that emerges is of ancient genetic mixture, says Reich, followed by fragmentation into small, isolated ethnic groups, which were then kept distinct for thousands of years because of limited intermarriage — a practice also known as endogamy." full text
  • "This genetic evidence refutes the claim that the Indian caste structure was a modern invention of British colonialism, the authors say." full text
  • "The evidence that most Indians are genetically alike, even though anthropological data show that Indian groups tend to marry within their own group, is "very puzzling"" full text

Tamang, Singh and Thangaraj (2012), Complex genetic origin of Indian populations and its implications

[edit]

Publication:

  • Tamang, Singh and Thangaraj (2012), Complex genetic origin of Indian populations and its implications, J. BioSci full text

Abstract: Indian populations are classified into various caste, tribe and religious groups, which altogether makes them very unique compared to rest of the world. The long-term firm socio-religious boundaries and the strict endogamy practices along with the evolutionary forces have further supplemented the existing high-level diversity. As a result, drawing definite conclusions on its overall origin, affinity, health and disease conditions become even more sophisticated than was thought earlier. In spite of these challenges, researchers have undertaken tireless and extensive investigations using various genetic markers to estimate genetic variation and its implication in health and diseases. We have demonstrated that the Indian populations are the descendents of the very first modern humans, who ventured the journey of out-of-Africa about 65,000 years ago. The recent gene flow from east and west Eurasia is also evident. Thus, this review attempts to summarize the unique genetic variation among Indian populations as evident from our extensive study among approximately 20,000 samples across India.

Other

[edit]

Metspalu et al. (2011), Shared and Unique Components

[edit]

Publication

[edit]

Publication:
Metspalu et al. (2011), Shared and Unique Components of Human Population Structure and Genome-Wide Signals of Positive Selection in South Asia, AJHG, Volume 89, Issue 6, 9 December 2011, Pages 731–744 journal summary full text

Summary:

Quotes:

  • "Combining our results with other available genome-wide data, we show that Indian populations are characterized by two major ancestry components, one of which is spread at comparable frequency and haplotype diversity in populations of South and West Asia and the Caucasus. The second component is more restricted to South Asia and accounts for more than 50% of the ancestry in Indian populations." (abstract)
  • "Modeling of the observed haplotype diversities suggests that both Indian ancestry components are older than the purported Indo-Aryan invasion 3,500 YBP." (abstract)
  • "Indians share more ancestry signals with West than with East Eurasians." (abstract)
  • "the correlation of PC1 with longitude within India might be interpreted as a signal of moderate introgression of West Eurasian genes into western India, which is consistent with previous studies on uniparental5,6 and autosomal markers.18 Overall, the contrasting spread patterns of PC2 and PC4, and of k5 and k6 in the ADMIXTURE analysis (Figure 2 and Figures S2 and S6), could be seen as consistent with the recently advocated model where admixture between two inferred ancestral gene pools (ancestral northern Indians [ANI] and ancestral southern Indians [ASI]) gave rise to the extant South Asian populace." (full text)
  • "In concordance with the geographic spread of the respective language groups, the Indian Indo-European- and Dravidic-speaking populations are placed on a north to south cline. The Indian Austroasiatic-speaking populations are, in turn, in agreement with their suggested origin in Southeast Asia" (full text)
  • "Summing up, our results confirm both ancestry and temporal complexity shaping the still on-going process of genetic structuring of South Asian populations. This intricacy cannot be readily explained by the putative recent influx of Indo-Aryans alone but suggests multiple gene flows to the South Asian gene pool, both from the west and east, over a much longer time span." (full text)

Assessment/commentary by Wikipedia-editors:

Press-coverage

[edit]

Tamang, Singh & Thangaraj (2012), Complex genetic origin of Indian populations and its implications

[edit]

Publication:
Tamang, R., Singh, L., & Thangaraj, K. (2012), Complex genetic origin of Indian populations and its implications, Journal of Biosciences, 37(5), 911-919 abstract PubMed abstract Springer

Summary:
"Indian populations are classified into various caste, tribe and religious groups, which altogether makes them very unique compared to rest of the world. The long-term firm socio-religious boundaries and the strict endogamy practices along with the evolutionary forces have further supplemented the existing high-level diversity. As a result, drawing definite conclusions on its overall origin, affinity, health and disease conditions become even more sophisticated than was thought earlier. In spite of these challenges, researchers have undertaken tireless and extensive investigations using various genetic markers to estimate genetic variation and its implication in health and diseases. We have demonstrated that the Indian populations are the descendents of the very first modern humans, who ventured the journey of out-of-Africa about 65,000 years ago. The recent gene flow from east and west Eurasia is also evident. Thus, this review attempts to summarize the unique genetic variation among Indian populations as evident from our extensive study among approximately 20,000 samples across India." abstract PubMed

Quotes:

Assessment/commentary by Wikipedia-editors:
This paper by one of the same authors of the 2013 study says the opposite of the later 2013 study and claims that the ANI admixture event was prior to the Indo-Aryan migration time frame, and that a migration can be ruled out on this basis (which is of course not the case because genes are not languages). Why he would publish a paper contradicting himself a year later is difficult to understand. But clearly we must assume that the latter paper, with more coauthors and published in a better journal is the authoritative one of the two.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 04:13, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't see a contradiction. The various research-papers are quite consistent: ANI and ASI are the original "settlers" of India, which appeared long before the Indo-Aryans. But that does not mean there were no Indo-Aryans, nor their language and religion. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:30, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
NB: note this comment: "The recent gene flow from east and west Eurasia is also evident." Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:00, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Meitei et al. (2012) Common genetic heritage and admixture

[edit]

Publication:
Meitei, S. Y., Meitei, K. S., Murry, B., Mondal, P. R., Saraswathy, K. N., Ghosh, P. K., & Sachdeva, M. P. (2012), Common genetic heritage and admixture among Indian population groups as revealed by mtDNA markers, Anthropological Science, 120(3), 227-234.

Summary:

Quotes:

  • "The study also reveals admixture among Indian populations with a decreasing trend from North to South India and higher heterogeneity among Northeast Indian populations"

Assessment/commentary by Wikipedia-editors:
Confirms and corroborates the genetic distinctiveness of North Indian IE speaking populations from the Southern Dravidian ones.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 04:18, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

You are linking them to Indo-Aryan migrations via your own personal opinion. It was determined in previous discussions that such genetic studies are original research. VictoriaGraysonTalk 04:41, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Then why did you and bladesmulti keep citing them as evidence? When you keep falsely claiming they supported your version, that means I have to review the literature to demonstrate that that is false.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:42, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Moorjani, Thangaraj et al. (2013), Genetic evidence for recent population mixture in India

[edit]

Publication

[edit]

Publication:
Moorjani, P., Thangaraj, K., Patterson, N., Lipson, M., Loh, P. R., Govindaraj, P., ... & Singh, L. (2013), Genetic evidence for recent population mixture in India. The American Journal of Human Genetics, 93(3), 422-438. abstract, full text AJHG abstract PubMed full text PuMed pdf

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Summary:
"Most Indian groups descend from a mixture of two genetically divergent populations: Ancestral North Indians (ANI) related to Central Asians, Middle Easterners, Caucasians, and Europeans; and Ancestral South Indians (ASI) not closely related to groups outside the subcontinent. The date of mixture is unknown but has implications for understanding Indian history. We report genome-wide data from 73 groups from the Indian subcontinent and analyze linkage disequilibrium to estimate ANI-ASI mixture dates ranging from about 1,900 to 4,200 years ago. In a subset of groups, 100% of the mixture is consistent with having occurred during this period. These results show that India experienced a demographic transformation several thousand years ago, from a region in which major population mixture was common to one in which mixture even between closely related groups became rare because of a shift to endogamy." abstract PubMed

Quotes:

  • "One possible explanation for the generally younger dates in northern Indians is that after an original mixture event of ANI and ASI that contributed to all present-day Indians, some northern groups received additional gene flow from groups with high proportions of West Eurasian ancestry, bringing down their average mixture date. This hypothesis would also explain the nonexponential decays of LD in many northern groups and their higher proportions of ANI ancestry." pdf p.429-430

Assessment/commentary by Wikipedia-editors:
This entire study provides genetic support for a migration of IE speakers carrying the ANI genetic complex between 4200 and 1900 BP. It shows both that ANI correlates with IE, and ASI with dravidian, and that the major admixture event happened in the time period when linguistics consider Proto-Indic (Indo-Aryan) to arrived in the subcontinent.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 04:08, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't agree. 4,200-1,900 is the period of the Harappan civilisation. When that vanished, the intermingling stopped, to be replaced by Sanskritisation and a caste-system - which coincides with the Vedic people... ~~
Chips. "4,200-1,900 years ago" - I read "BCE". Ha! That is 2,200 BCE-100 CE. Indeed, the Vedic people. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:20, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
ANI means Ancestral North Indians. They didn't arrive from anywhere, unless you are of course talking about out of Africa. This is the problem with original research and personal interpretations. Basically, the Vedics were native to North India.VictoriaGraysonTalk 15:26, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
You are being dim, all populations arrive from somewhere and the fact that they use the word "ancestral" does not mean "native" it just means that the genes are the ancestral genes of that population. It doesnt say where that ancestral population lived. When two ancestral populations share genes such as the ANI and other Indoeuropean peoples then chances are that they lived together and one of them had to migrate. So again it boils fown to the absurd scenario that all indo-europeans originated in India, or the meaningful scenario that Europeans and Indians originated somewhere else and each migrated to their current positions.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:45, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Being called dim is a personal insult. Basically all I see is your personal interpretations, also known as original research.VictoriaGraysonTalk 15:50, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Whereas your personal interpretations that contradict the statements in the actual studies are what exactly?User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:55, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Maunus you are making personal attack. If you don't have anything to say on content dispute then find something else to do. I may add you are indulging in heavy original research. --AmritasyaPutraT 15:53, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
There is not a single word of original research going on here--Maunus is simply rephrasing the very conclusions being made in the article. And you two are, indeed, practicing an extreme form of I didn't hear that when you ignore the comment (from the source) that these gene markers match markers found through the Middle East, Central Asia, and Europe. Guess where the Proto-Indo-Europeans came from? Ding, ding, ding. Europe through Central Asia (the Andronovo complex per Anthony and Fortson) and into northern India. --Taivo (talk) 16:13, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
One researcher dates ANI to 40,000 years ago. See below. So its personal interpretation to link all of this to Aryan Migrations @Taivo:, especially when none of the studies explicitly do that.VictoriaGraysonTalk 16:17, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for writing Taivo. You may pursue the discussion in its entirety including all the sources and argument presented. Mocking me won't help. In fact, I am learned in this topic and I fully understand what I wrote/write. Regards. --AmritasyaPutraT 16:20, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
And Victoria, it is your own "original research" and your own "improper synthesis" to assume that the one' source using 40,000 years is the correct one. And since these sources don't specifically rule out an outside source for the ANI DNA, you are also doing original research to assume that its origin is in India. Two can play the game of accusing the other of "OR". --Taivo (talk) 18:03, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

The ANI/ASI-settlement predates the Indo-Aryans with tens of thousands of years. The admicture coincides with the Indo-Aryans. The onset of endogamy coincides with the Kushan empire; why? It looks like this article is a must-read; I've provided a link to the pdf. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:45, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Press-coverage

[edit]

Fountain Ink on Thangaraj (2013)

[edit]

Publication:
Srinath Perur (3 december 2014), The origins of Indians, Fountain Ink; the link was provided by Blades.

Quotes:

  • "Most Indians alive today are descended from a mixture of two very diffrent populations, Reich and colleagues reported in Nature in 2009 based on a study of 25 ethnic groups. Thse two populations—the red and green of the earlier analogy—were given the names Ancestral North Indians (ANI) and Ancestral South Indians (ASI)."
  • "Th ANI showed genetic similarities with Europeans, Middle Easterners, and Central Asians. Some ANI ancestry was present in almost all Indian groups, but the percentage was found to be greater in the north of India and lesser in the south"
  • "Broadly, groups that spoke IndoEuropean languages and were traditionally considered upper-caste had a larger ANI component."
  • "It was still unknown when exactly these populations had mixed. Thse details came in August this year in the American Journal of Human Genetics. K. Thngaraj and Reich’s groups had assembled data from 73 diffrent ethnic groups from across India and two from Pakistan"
  • "In summary: about 4,200 years ago, there would have been people in the Indian subcontinent who were completely ANI in their genetic makeup, and others who were completely ASI. About 1,900 years ago, there were likely no pure populations of either ANI or ASI left So, there began about 4,200 years ago a period of demographic change due to inter-breeding among two dramatically diffrent populations. Then, after about 1,900 years ago, there was no signifcant inter-breeding, pointing to cultural changes that brought in a strong form of endogamy, the practice of marrying within one’s group. Th period is known to be a particularly eventful one for the Indian subcontinent: large-scale changes were occurring in river systems and climate; the Harappan civilisation was fragmenting; and, according to many linguists and historians, the Sanskrit language and Vedic culture were making an appearance"
  • "K. Thangaraj believes it was much longer ago, and that the ANI came to India in a second wave of migration that happened perhaps 40,000 years ago."
  • "In Central Europe, it has revealed, again in conjunction with other methods, that groups of indigenous hunter-gatherer people existed side by side with immigrant farmers in the period between 7,000 and 5,000 years ago, with women from the foragers sometimes marrying into the farmers but not the other way round. (It may be that ancient India went through a similar phase soon aftr with ANI and ASI people.)"

Assessment/commentary by Wikipedia-editors:
It's not clear to me how this study "proves" that the IAMt is "wrong". It does raise an interesting question, though: why did this intermingling appear between 4,200 and 1,900 ago, that is, 2,200 BCE and 100 CE? Does it have anything to do with the end of the Harappans, the arrival of the Vedics, the secondurbanisation, and the Sanskritization of India? Notice also: "according to many linguists and historians, the Sanskrit language and Vedic culture were making an appearance". Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:08, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

ANI means Ancestral North Indians. They didn't arrive from anywhere, unless you are of course talking about out of Africa. This is the problem with original research and personal interpretations. Basically, the Vedics were native to North India.VictoriaGraysonTalk 15:24, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
In your imagination perhaps, but not in the study, since that is the opposite of what it says.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:55, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Mixing of ANI and ASI has nothing to do with the arrival of ANI.VictoriaGraysonTalk 16:12, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
ANI is called that because that's where the genetic testing was located. Using the term "ANI" as an argument against migration is your own improper original research and improper synthesis, Victoria. You can't accuse Maunus of original research because he reads "this DNA is linked to Europe" and sees Indo-European when you use the term "ANI" to assume that the migration theory is wrong. You are a pot. --Taivo (talk) 16:20, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
@Taivo: If ANIs date to 40,000 years ago, what does it have to do with Aryan Migrations? Do any of these studies explicitly link their content to Aryan Migrations?VictoriaGraysonTalk 16:25, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
That 40,000 year date is not the standard used in the majority of these sources. The dates given in the majority of these sources is more along the lines of the time frame for the incursion of Proto-Indo-Aryan/Sanskrit into the Indian subcontinent. The 40,000 year date is a wisp of smoke without basis. --Taivo (talk) 17:59, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Yet again I ask: Do any of these studies explicitly link their content to Aryan Migrations?VictoriaGraysonTalk 18:01, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
And Do any of these studies explicitly NOT link their content to the Aryan Migrations? --Taivo (talk) 19:20, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Nice questions, Joshua. The changes in 2,200 BC fit nicely with the picture of:

  • Saraswati river drying up, forcing people to move upstream, and later to Gangetic plains,
  • the arrival of horses and chariots, increasing mobility, and
  • Vedic rishis touring the subcontinent, preaching a universalist religion, breaking down erstwhile barriers.

Very useful information from this study. Thanks! Kautilya3 (talk) 18:48, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

And, what happened in 100 CE? Many people say that the caste system of the present day took shape during the Gupta times (300 CE onwards). This was traditionally called the "Golden Age" by Indian historians. However, the Arya Samajists have always maintained that the Vedic age was the Golden age, and it got corrupted in later times. Food for thought! Kautilya3 (talk) 19:00, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, it's fascinating. And actually, this is the kind of questions we should ask ourselves. Not the black-and-white "The Aryan Invasion Theory is refuted! - No, the Indo-Aryan Migration Theory is not refuted!" That's too simple, and only stirring-up a lot of emotion. I think that the "Indigenists", at least here at Wikipedia, should try to understand that the IAMt does not speak about wilde hordes invading India. Then we can see what those studies actually say, and what's relevant for Wikipedia. After all, we're not supposed to "prove" or "refute" any theory; we're supposed to reflect the relevant academic research. And improve the articles. When we ask ourselves questions, we also open up new territories to explore. Or am I too idealistic? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:50, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
To come back to Vic's objections: he's right, but not completely. The ANI and ASI form the basis of India's population, dating back to ca. 50,000 years ago. Several studies have concluded so. So that's not "a wisp of smoke without basis," and yes, it does predate the Indo-Aryan migrations. But... there have also been migrations and influxes there-after, which have left their traces. Not only male, but also female. And let's not forget, the IAm is not necessarily a "folk migration," a migration of large groups of people. It's more about elite male groups - herdsman who provided an attractive alternative to the detoriating agricultural economy of the Harappan civilisation. But it's too easy to conclude that there was no Indo-Aryan influence on India. Newspapers are to eager to state that "the Aryan invasion theory has been rebuked". Let them explain what the IAMt is about, instead of fighting Muller's 19th century ghost which is still haunting the collective imagination. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:48, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Dan Kedmey (2013), What DNA Testing Reveals About India’s Caste System, Time

[edit]

Publication:

  • Dan Kedmey (2013), What DNA Testing Reveals About India’s Caste System, Time full text

Quotes:

  • "Their finding, recently published in the American Journal of Human Genetics, made waves when it was revealed that genetic mixing ended 1,900 years ago, around the same time the caste system was being codified in religious texts. The Manusmriti, which forbade intermarriage between castes, was written in the same period, give or take a century. Thangaraj says the study shows only a correlation between the early caste system and the divergence of bloodlines, and whether one caused the other is a debate better left to historians. Nonetheless, it puts a stake in the ground, marking the moment when the belief that one should marry within one’s own group developed into an active practice." full text

Assessment/commentary by Wikipedia-editors:
A clear picture emerging, when you take the effort to read those papers: India was populated by two ancestral groups, ca. 50,000 years go. In the period of 4,200-1,900 years ago they mixed - and then endogamy started. Other groups also entered India, but left significantly less genetic traces, including the Indo-Aryans. But they did have another significant influence: their language, and their religious texts. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 21:06, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Other

[edit]

Mastana, S. S. (2014)

[edit]

Publication:

  • Mastana, S. S. (2014), Unity in diversity: an overview of the genomic anthropology of India, Annals of human biology, 41(4), 287-299. abstract

Summary:

Quotes:

Assessment/commentary by Wikipedia-editors:

Mohammad Ali et al. (2014), Characterizing the genetic differences

[edit]

Publication:

  • Mohammad Ali et al. (2014), Characterizing the genetic differences between two distinct migrant groups from Indo-European and Dravidian speaking populations in India, BMC Genetics 2014, 15:86 doi:10.1186/1471-2156-15-86 full text

Conclusions:
"Our finding points to a gene-flow from Europe to north India that provides an explanation for the lighter skin tones present in North Indians in comparison to South Indians." full text

Quotes:

  • "Traditional upper castes from north India tend to be Indo-Aryan language speakers and are associated with fairer skin complexion, and there tended to be little vertical inter-caste marriages [28]. This would agree with previous reports of north-western Indians and those from upper castes across India having a greater degree of genetic similarity to that present in central and west Asia, as well as parts of Europe [1,3,29,30]" full text

Assessment/commentary by Wikipedia-editors: I don't know if this study is in line with Moorjani et al. (2013), whi ascribe the European features of northern Indian higher classes to pre-Indo-Aryan origins. But it's an interesting addition. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:43, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

[edit]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Joshua_Jonathan/Genetic_research_on_the_origins_of_India%27s_population&oldid=1136218830"