Misplaced Pages

Talk:Genetics and archaeogenetics of South Asia: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 04:10, 17 January 2010 editRudrasharman (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users4,881 edits sigh, another one heard from← Previous edit Latest revision as of 18:49, 21 July 2024 edit undoFylindfotberserk (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers165,809 edits →South asian genetics .: Reply 
(609 intermediate revisions by 60 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{WikiProject Genetics|class=|importance=|imageneeded=|imagedetails=|unref=}} {{WikiProject banner shell |class=Start|1=
{{WikiProject Molecular Biology|MCB=yes|MCB-importance=low|genetics=yes |genetics-importance=Mid |imageneeded= |imagedetails= |unref= }}
{{WikiProject Human Genetic History|attention=yes}}
{{Wikiproject MCB|class=start|importance=low}} {{WikiProject Human Genetic History |attention=yes |importance=High }}
{{WikiProject South Asia|importance=mid}}
}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{aan}}
|maxarchivesize = 100K
|counter = 4
|minthreadsleft = 5
|algo = old(90d)
|archive = Talk:Genetics and archaeogenetics of South Asia/Archive %(counter)d
}}
{{Archives |search=yes |bot=Lowercase sigmabot III |age=3 |units=months |index=/Archive index }}
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
|target=/Archive index |mask=/Archive <#> |leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes
}}


error deleted.] (]) 08:00, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
Why is no one talking of sample size and sampling strategy of all the studies that have been done? MOst of these studies are poor in terms of design and not much generalisations can be made from them.== Tocharians ==
This article probably could benefit from some reference to (or at least a link to) the Tocharian people


== Lede too long and other redundancies ==
Borderline if they can be included in the "south asia concept" but as india seems to belong here, and the ] probably had some contact there on their way to the east of China....


The lede currently contains two summaries, a very brief one in paragraph three, and a longer one in the fourth paragraph. Then is there is the section "Overview" which has more detail, and finally "Reconstructing South Asian population history" where many of the details in "Overview" are repeated.
Even if they did or did not in the end contribute many genes they can stand as an example of the migrations from Europe to Asia that were taking place. And it's nice that we have physical relics of them, mummies and colour depictions.


This is too much redundancy. Usually, we summarize a detailed section ''once'' in the lede. A mid-level summary may appear in a dedicated "Overview" section, which should just cover key points that are further elaborated in specialized sections. I am aware that much of this has grown organically, but time has come for us to take an effort to trim this massive overgrowth. My ] is ready, but maybe we want to establish first what is essential for a brief summary in the lede and what isn't. ] (]) 17:57, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
Then there are the genetics of the ] people and the ] People, who also seem to have had that funny looking yellow hair and seem to have been lodged outside their normal realm, but they are in africa hence by far outside the scope of this article.


:{{ping|Austronesier}} If I remember correctly, the 'Overview' section was made (bloated) into a second "]" section by IP socks of WorldCreaterFighter sometime in August-October 2021. Before that it was like . - ] (]) 18:05, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
Would take a shot at it myself if I were not so lazzzzy.
::Ugh, not really much better back then 😂 –] (]) 18:08, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
----


:{{reply to|user:Austronesier}} and {{reply to|user:Fylindfotberserk}} Maybe we shorten the summaries in the lead into just one paragraph (as opposed to two); reduce the overview section to only inform about relevant events: eg. compact information on peopling and migration events, as well as short info about the respective ancestral components (name, relationship, etc.); and move the more detailed informations and study views into the "Reconstructing South Asian population history" (kind of rewritting it). Maybe we try to "dechronologify" the "Autosomal DNA variation" section a bit too. - '''I have just prepared a possible version here:'''. It would be nice if you can review it, if we may use that one. Thanks. Regards–] (]) 14:06, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
==Removed copy from Bamshad et al. study==
A user ] has copied a large portion from Bamshad et al. study. This is irrelevent here as the it was just one of the studies also the first one to explore it. The details of the study has been included under mtDNA and Y-chromosome headings. In fact, many of the data from the study is patently incorrect, such as mtDNA U2i as proved by the later Kivisild et al. study(2003). So we don't have to consider that primitive study as the final word on caste genetics.


::The lead looks kinda OK (small changes can be discussed). The overview seems too short, as big as the lead, to the point that we can merge both {{p}} (] for example doesn't have an 'overview' section). If we are not merging them, the overview section can be a bit bigger, 50% of the original?, plus with info on the haplogroups restored. Skimming through the 'autosomal' section, I believe the Yang 2022 part needs to be trimmed and merged, especially since the paper is largely a summary of what Narasimhan, Shinde and Yelmen discovered as far as AASI is concerned (Do we need large chunks of quotes from the papers?). For a proposed lineage, the article already seems to have more coverage of that particular component (AASI), need to balance those. Let's see what Austronesier has to say. - ] (]) 18:57, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
] (23 Apr 2006)
::I agree it's a good start. But it still needs more "dechronologifying", after all, we don't want to present a history of research, but rather the present consensus of our knowledge about the topic. Some old sources might have been important building blocks to reach this consensus, but we have to break "the A said this, then B said that, then C said this etc."-pattern. Narasimhan et al. (2018) and Narasimhan et al. (2019) have separate citations, that's also a relic of the original version. <small>This is why anyone wanting to add preprints in Misplaced Pages should get their balls wired and receive an electric shock when the peer-review version comes out so they remember to update the citation ;)</small>
::Personally, I think the "short" summary was good enough for the lede, while current draft summary makes a good "Overview" section (if needed at all; personally, I think it's a nice thing to have). Can't say more at the moment, because I'm enthusiastically worknig on a somewhat related project in my sandbox. –] (]) 21:23, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
:::Thank you for your comments, I will try to "dechronologify" as much as possible. Also trying to find a smoother solution for the lead/overview. Regards.–] (]) 12:24, 11 December 2023 (UTC)


::::{{ping|Wikiuser1314}} version's structuring is better than the current one you are trying in your sandbox IMO. The lead is succinct. After that many versions over the years, an overview section seems important, needs a little more in my opinion and would be better if kept separate from the lede. should be avoided, since terms like AAI (AAA) and ATB, etc are not mainstream unlike ANI, ASI, and AASI. The former only show up papers by the Basu and those group of scientists. - ] (]) 11:37, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
:::::{{reply to|user:Fylindfotberserk}} Ok, thanks for your input, than I will use the previous version.–] (]) 11:43, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
{{od}} Regarding this edit: I can see that the statement "closest to Southern Indian tribal groups" as such is wrong, but shouldn't we at least mention somewhere that the highest levels of AASI-ancestry are found among Southern Indian tribal groups? –] (]) 10:30, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
:Maybe in the "autosomal" section. Now that you mention, I see that the ] part - "Paniya and Irula as better proxies for indigenous South Asian (AASI)" - is present in both the "overview" and the "autosomal" section. Needs to be corrected. - ] (]) 12:50, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
::Loads of other things need to be corrected too. I've just exemplarily changed a passage based on Shinde et al. (2019). Actually, they note that the same set of qpAdm-sources has also been used for the Indus Periphery Cline in Narasimhan et al. (2019). I also don't like the statement "but others (Yelmen et al. 2019) note that both are deeply diverged from each other"; "but" insinuates that others haven't been aware of this before, which gives a wrong picture since Narasimhan et al. literally say the same thing ("even though the two populations are deeply diverged from one another in time..."). Narasimhan et al. describe a near-trifucation of AASI, AHG and Papuans, with a minimal shared branch length of 3 for AHG and Papuans; Yelmen et al. 2019 also split out their "S" component first in a near-trifucation of AASI, AHG and East Asians (no shared branch length given for the latter; maybe its buried somewhere in the Supplementary Information?).
:::{{ping|Austronesier}} Yes . This line - "The Andamanese people are among the relatively most closely related modern populations to the AASI component and henceforth used as an (imperfect) proxy for it" is problematic especially when Reich 2009 is used as one of the sources. ''AASI'' wasn't coined then. - ] (]) 18:16, 17 December 2023 (UTC)


== A relevant book ==
==Removed the following:==


Someone should summarize this book: https://books.google.co.in/books/about/Genomic_Diversity_in_People_of_India.html?id=UbI2EAAAQBAJ&source=kp_book_description&redir_esc=y here. It seems to be a relevant book. @] @] ] (]) 03:09, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
''It is certainly agreed upon by most antoropologists that most Indians, whether "Dravidian" or "Aryan" are still members of the ] as per their skull-structure and genes.
:Hi {{replyto|user:Ionian9876}}, the book is focused "on mtDNA and Y-Chromosome polymorphism", as such I would '''not''' consider it '''that relevant'''. It may be relevant for haplogroup diversity, but we all know now that haplogroups are very affected by founder effects and bottlenecks, and may tell us nothing about the genetic makeup of individuals/ethnic groups. Regards.–] (]) 07:57, 8 January 2024 (UTC)


== Male Yamnaya component not attested in prehistoric India. ==
'''Egon Freiherr von Eickstedt'''
{{Von E. Eickstedt racial definitions}}


" the incoming mostly male-mediated Yamnaya-Steppe component to form the Ancestral North Indians (ANI)," I wonder whence the writer got this intelligence? Core Yamnaya had no R1a, and it remains a riddle how the R1a-Z93-94 reached India and where and for when it has been attested there.] (]) 16:56, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
''
---
skull-structure? and his theories are linked to some dodgy 'white race' page.. It should be clear that the existence of a specific genetic marker ] does not necessarily relate to the appearance (skull-structure) or colour of skin of a person. Even though it is interesting to see how the genes distribution is consistent with the thus far lingustically theoretical ] But note that the article's links are considere pseudo-science and that this is a highly controversial field...
As of 1999, most Physical Anthropologists disagreed that there are any physical existing 'races' that differentiate the human race.


== Pl. Join the discussion ==
] 28/02/07


@] and @] I suggest both of you to join the discussions at talk page with your respective points and not to edit war any further. ] (]) 06:28, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
== Text ==
Maybe this text (from Indo-Aryan migration article) can be merged here:
There has been significant progress in genetic studies of the Indian caste populations in the last five years (as of 2006); this has implications for the Indo-Aryan migration/invasion theory. The studies could be broadly classified into pro-racial and pro-cultural.


:I agree to join this discussion. IP, I request you to join this discussion too and not edit war any further. What you are doing here is promoting a fringe theory. The main article (see ]) itself mentions that Dravidians are Indigenous to South Asia, but "might" have an Iranic origin (also see the hypothetical ] language family). However it is unproven as of now and a fringe theory. I shall also advise you to be civil. Also as far as I am aware "Hindutva" (incorrectly) claims that Aryans are indigenous to India (see ]). I never made such a claim. ] 10:01, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
The genetic studies are ongoing with conflicting results: those that support an infusion of genetic material {Bamshad et al.(2001), Spencer Wells, Journey of Man(2002), Basu et al. (2003), Cordaux et al.(2004)} (pro-racial) and those that don't {Kivisild et al.(2003), Sengupta et al.(2005), Sahoo et al.(2006)} (pro-cultural). A final picture will emerge after critical and comparative analyses of these studies.


::Obviously Dravidian speakers have deep rooted ancient Iranian ancestry. It isn't fringe per say as far as genetics is concerned, just that it is not well discussed. Obviously the nativism associated with 'Dravidian' speakers is politically motivated (Periyarist movement for example). Since we are discussing genetics here explicitly, I don't see a reason not to mention the arguments of some researchers and attribute to them. Note that Dravidian speaking mid / agricultural castes are majority Iran related, even the dalit and tribals are quite heavy in that ancestry. The few years older - Narasimhan and Shinde papers suggested that Proto-Dravidian might have origins in the IVC-InPe (which is in accordance with the commonly accepted view of "IVC were Dravidian speakers"), and considering how heavy the Iranian part of the samples were (Rakhigarhi even), it isn't far fetched to assume the origin of the language family to be in Iran, especially among a group of people that were related to but formed a distinct line with the Belt Cave HGs and Ganj Dareh herders as demonstrated by , and these two recent researches seems to allude to that. - ] (]) 11:38, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
The pro-racial construction studies maintain that there exists "Aryan" Y-lineages in Indian(especially upper caste) population. The age of these Y-lineages in India coincided with the putative Aryan invasion period in their studies.


:::Terminology question (because a lot of arguments are caused by terminology) when you say "Iranian" do you literally mean "Iranian speaking" or do you mean something like "from the West Asian area which is now Iran"?--] (]) 11:44, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
The pro-cultural construction studies argue that the lineages identified with the "Aryan" are in fact more diverse in lower caste and tribal populations even though their frequency is lower. Their studies came to the conclusion that most of Indian Y-chromosomes date back to late ].


::::"Iranian Neolithic" to be precise and yes "from the West Asian area which is now Iran". - ] (]) 11:49, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
Interestingly, western Eurasian mtDNA haplogroup U2i in pro-racial Bamshad et al. study turned into Eastern Eurasian(mostly India specific) in pro-culture Kivisild et al. study.
:::@], I am fine with the status quo as it currently says "maybe". Also, the middle castes (Reddy, etc.) have heavy Iran-related, ''as well as'' Steppes ancestry, indicating that the these might have been descendents of Indo-Aryan-speaking Ancestral North Indians who might've mixed with the AASI Dravidians. On the other hand, other castes (which form a bulk of the population) and Dravidian tribes have about two-thirds or more AASI ancestry, though with significant Ancient Iranic ancestry, but negligible to no Steppes ancestry, the Iranic ancestry likely coming from Harappan migrations after the decline of IVC. ] 12:07, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
::::I agree with Fyl here. There is no contradiction, although we should be careful to include highly speculative (or fringe) proposals such as Elamo-Dravidian in this context. I have repeatedly explained to PadFoot2008 that Dravidian languages are indigenous to South Asia only in relation to the arrival of Indo-Aryan speakers four millenia ago. That doesn't preclude that the predecessors of present-day Dravidian languages also migrated into South Asia from outside prior to the Indo-Aryan migration (nor does it preclude that certain IE-speaking tribal groups can well be considered "indigenous peoples" in a modern context; this is, however, off-topic here). Proto-Dravidian is most certainly native to South Asia as Krishnamurti has shown based on basic vocabulary that can be reconstructed for Proto-Dravidian and that is compatible with a South Asian physical, faunal and floral environment. But this only applies to the time right before Proto-Dravidian diversified into its daughter branches. Before that, the ancestors of the Proto-Dravidian speakers might well have arrived from outside; or more precisely speaking: outsiders may well have significantly (or dominantly?) contributed to the genepool of Proto-Dravidian speakers. There's nothing fringe about that.
::::Finally, keep in mind that linguistic and genetic diversity to not necessarily match. Entire speaker groups can undergo language shift through social interaction without or with only little geneflow involved. It is highly likely that next to the extant language families (and isolates), there were other language families in South Asia that were completely submerged by the major current language families. There is not reason to assume a priori that AASI ancestry (or any other ancestral component) must be a tracer-dye that can be associated with a specific language family, e.g. Dravidian. –] (]) 12:24, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
:::::{{ec}}@PadFoot2008, Mid/Agricultural-castes like Kamma, Kapu, Reddy, Vallar, Velama apparently form the bulk in the Dravidian states and they have negligible steppe. They are majority ancient Iran derived (both of Belt Cave/Ganj Dareh like and Namazga/BMAC like) and are very much what should be the late IVC types migrating out after its fall. It is possible that these heavy Iran IVC migrant imparted their language into the existing high AASI tribal groups instead. Just did a model on Mala tribe and got around 34 to 39 percent Iran Neolithic related.
:::::The IVC were (Proto)Dravidian-speakers per majority / general consensus and they were mostly Iran N derived. It is far more likely that the Iran N part of their ancestry is associated with the language. Not sure how a 'proposed' group of hunter-gatherers (AASI), who didn't have much in the name of society (as far as we know) and having minimal impact on the DNA of Early IVC would be instrumental in forming one of the oldest civilizations/languages of the world. Considering the existence of far older language isolates like Nihali, it is likely that the various streams of AASI spoke these languages/isolates. - ] (]) 12:42, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
::::::@], Firstly, Middle castes don't form a bulk of the population of South India. Take Tamil Nadu for instance, Backward Castes (45.5%), Most Backward Castes (23.6%) and Scheduled Castes (23.7%) together form 92.8% of Tamil Nadu's population. In Andhra Pradesh, Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes together account for 74.6% of the state's population.
::::::Secondly, both ] and ] articles mention that ] ''might'' have been spoken there. Mostly, only scholars that support the ] hypothesis, support that the language might have been spoken in the IVC. However a reconstruction of Proto-Dravidian shows that it's vocabulary is characteristic of the dry deciduous forests of central and peninsular India, not Iran or the Indus Valley. It is certainly not the majority view. ] 16:23, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
:::::::By 'mid-caste', I meant the non-high caste non-dalit non SC and ST population based on . The Nadar caste which I believe is considered BC, are very similar to the Vellalar who are Iran N heavy. Even with the Madiga, an SC group, I get ~43% Iran related. The hypothesis that support a peninsular origin of Dravidian languages are based on re-construction of a Proto-language based on a few root words, but doesn't align with archaeology, genetics and material culture. There was an obvious large scale migration from IVC towards the south. I believe there are more proponents of IVC origin of Dravidian languages, many of whom are not necessarily supporters of the Elamo-Davidian hypothesis, bolstered by newer researches like these- , that go hand in hand with linguistics and genetics. Note that comes from pre-Vedic IVC, which might be a relict of the ANE people, and Iran N has copious amounts of ANE ancestry. Anyway, this is becoming too forumy, I'd suggest addition of these two sources, without changing any text. - ] (]) 17:38, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
:::::::{{ec}} Why is even the IVC discussed here? The proposed IP edit doesn't even mention it. But for the record, the statement {{tq|"only scholars that support the ] hypothesis, support that the language might have been spoken in the IVC"}} (once again) betrays an unfamiliarity with the relevant literature. There are scholars like Asko Parpola who argue for a Dravidian affiliation the language of the IVC without ever supporting the Elamo-Dravidian hypothesis. And again, you're conflating genetic with linguistic evidence. I won't repeat what I have written above, but your claim that linking the introduction of Iranian hunter-gatherer-related ancestry with the introduction of the language that evolved into Proto-Dravidian on South Asian soil is fringe needs a source that calls it so. Sure, this link is sometimes embedded in an Elamo-Dravidian framework, mostly by Indian geneticists who uncritically accept the Elamo-Dravidian hypothesis as an established fact, but sure not by all scholars (cf. Mukhopadhyay's paper).
:::::::In case the IP will ever join this discussion: of course, ''Nature'' does publish fringe articles. To get published in ''Nature'', it "only" needs a paper that appears to the editors worthy of further discussion by the scientific community. For articles in the core expertise of ''Nature'', the threshold for inclusion is quite high, but for articles outside of their expertise, it can be astonishingly low, as in the case of said article by Mukhopadhyay. Likewise, a sensationalist title like "Human Y chromosome haplogroup L1-M22 traces Neolithic expansion in West Asia and supports the Elamite and Dravidian connection" (what does "Elamite and Dravidian connection" even mean?) is also not indicative of a differentiated discussion. Indeed, their conclusion is all iffy: "''if'' Elamo-Dravidan is valid, then our findings support it". LOL. –] (]) 17:46, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
::::::::{{re|Fylindfotberserk}} Instead of citing lesser works (albeit published in good journals), why don't we use Narasimhan et al. (2019)? On page 12 (first column, second paragraph), they propose a link between the Dravidian languages and the Iranian-related portion of ASI ancestry. –] (]) 17:55, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
::::::::I am not proposing a change in the article text, I think the status quo is good. Also, I initially claimed that it was a fringe theory (sorry, my bad), but in my previous comment, I revised it to say that it is not a majority view (as far as I am aware). I see that there is a significant section of scholars who propose the link between Dravidians and Ancient Iranians. Also to @], I never refuted the large-scale migration of IVC people(s) to the peninsula after the decline of IVC, that is, in fact, what likely contributed Iranian ancestry in Dravidians. What I meant to say is that it doesn't necessarily support an Iranic origin of the Dravidians (but it is indeed possible). ] 18:06, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::{{ec}}{{ping|Austronesier}} Perhaps, why the text is there in the first place. Narasimhan is referenced at the end of the paragraph, alongwith a bunch of other references. You know who jumbled up all those {{p}}. If necessary we can attach the specific quote. - ] (]) 18:16, 21 June 2024 (UTC)


== South asian genetics . ==
However, there are still doubts exist over autosomal admixture analysis. It is also suggested that Indian marital traditions may have an impact on the calculation of age of Indian Y-haplogroups.


engage in discussion. ] (]) 14:57, 21 July 2024 (UTC)


:We use research papers as source. The term you are referring is Indus Periphery-related ancestry, and that is already well covered in the article. We do not need extra information on it from news sources. - ] (]) 15:23, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
The ] differ in their classification of Dravidians. Most modern anthropologists, however, reject the genetic existence of race<ref>Bindon, Jim. University of Alabama. Department of Anthropology. August 23, 2006. <http://www.as.ua.edu/ant/bindon/ant275/presentations/POST_WWII.PDF#search=%22stanley%20marion%20garn%22>.</ref>, like ] who states that "every human genome differs from every other", showing the impossibility of using genetics to define races. (Biology as Ideology, page 68).<ref>Lewontin, R.C. Biology as Ideology The Doctrine of DNA. Ontario: HarperPerennial, 1991.</ref> According to population geneticist L.L. ] of ], almost all Indians are genetically ],<ref name="Genetic Closeness">{{cite web
:Quality sources are unnegiotiable for Misplaced Pages (see: ]), especially for scientific topics that receive a lot of media attention and all the simplicism and inaccuracies that come with it. We have just trashed badly sourced information in a another article that claimed that the Rakhigarhi individual was genetically most similar to present-day South Indian tribal groups—very incorrect and very much not representing what the two seminal papers of 2019 actually say. And now we have a blanket statement that was apparently made by Reich in interviews on the occasion of the publication of the Rakhgarhi paper. Reich's statement as quoted in the press definitely makes more sense than the rubbish about high affinities with South Indian tribal groups, but: you need to cite a reliable, peer-reviewed academic publication in support for such a statement. Maybe there is one; if there is, then we can gladly weave in some text about it into the article, and probably also into the lede section, which summarizes the article. –] (]) 15:36, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
| last = Sailer
::https://reich.hms.harvard.edu/sites/reich.hms.harvard.edu/files/inline-files/eaat7487.full_.pdf
| first = Steve
::Yes ,sure. I understand you completely and agree your concerns. But david reich indeed said this not just with media but he clealry says in his own research. In the above pdf ,in 5th page under south asia, 2nd point he clearly said that indus Periphery cline contrubuted the majority which he named them as harappans with media that's why the confusion .both are same. Would like to sort this thing out and i wanna add this pdf source too along with article ? What do you think? ] (]) 15:47, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
| url = http://www.vdare.com/sailer/india.htm
:::But we already have exactly that key point from Narasimhan et al. (2019) in the fourth paragraph of the lede, in case you have missed it: {{tq|... the Indus Periphery Cline around ~5400–3700 BCE, '''which constitutes the main ancestral heritage of most modern South Asian groups'''}}. Note that Narasimhan et al. (2019) talk about the Indus Periphery Cline in toto, not about one specimen (= Rakhigarhi "I6113", only covered in Shinde et al. (2019)) that formed part of it.
| title = Interesting India, Competitive China
:::And FWIW, let's give a shout-out to Fyl who added it 2 years ago :) –] (]) 15:54, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
| work = xbiz
::::I agree with you and it came to my notice as I read but in introduction it was not much highlighted it was talking about AASI even though it was a minor ancestry, specially i want to add it in first 3 paragraphs .thats why i want to add only a single line in the introduction. I will try to contribute if i have any valuable information for the rest of the body if necessary but for now i hope you agree on my request about adding that single line in the introduction. So that readers will get clarity when they read. Hope you agree. What do you think Austronesier? ] (]) 16:12, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
| accessdate = 2006-09-12
:::::That single line would be quite ''non sequitur'' in the first two paragraphs as these provide an explaination what the topic of "Genetics and archaeogenetics of South Asia" actually comprises, and what kind of scientific research it is based on. "Harappan-related" is also a bit problematic when academic sources talk about the "Indus Periphery Cline" here. Even the latter is problematic considering that 11 out of 12 specimen do not originate from the IVC, but from ] and ], but WP echoes the terminology of best sources, so we go with that. Maybe Fyl can think of a rephrasing/reordering of the content of the third and fourth paragraphs so that the undeniably main ancestral source for most South Indian populations gets more due visibility here. –] (]) 16:33, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
}}</ref> but Lewontin rejects the label Caucasian.<ref>Robert Jurmain, Lynn Kilgore, Wenda Trevathan, and Harry Nelson. Introduction to Physical Anthropology. 9th ed. (Canada: Thompson Learning, 2003)</ref> Cavalli-Sforza found that Indians are about three times closer to West Europeans than to East Asians. Genetic ] ] considers the entirety of the Indian Subcontinent to be a "race" genetically distinct from other populations.<ref>Garn SM. Coon. On the Number of Races of Mankind. In Garn S, editor. Readings on race. Springfield C.C. Thomas.</ref><ref>Robert Jurmain, Lynn Kilgore, Wenda Trevathan, and Harry Nelson. Introduction to Physical Anthropology. 9th ed. (Canada: Thompson Learning, 2003) </ref> Others, such as Lynn B. Jorde and Stephen P. Wooding, claim South Indians are genetic intermediaries between Europeans and East Asians.<ref>Jorde, Lynn B Wooding, Stephen P. Nature Genetics. Department of Human Genetics. 2004. <http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v36/n11s/full/ng1435.html>. </ref><ref>Bamshad, M.J. et al. Human population genetic structure and inference of group membership. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 72, 578−589 (2003).</ref><ref>Rosenberg, N.A. et al. Genetic structure of human populations. Science 298, 2381−2385 (2002).</ref>
::::::sure ,I will try to reorder/rephrase the content of 3rd and 4rth paragraphs. Thanks. ] (]) 16:48, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Recent studies of the distribution of ] on the ], ] DNA, and ] DNA in India have cast overwhelmingly strong doubt upon any biological Dravidian "race" as distinct from non-Dravidians in the Indian subcontinent. This doubtfulness applies to both paternal and maternal descent; however, it does not preclude the possibility of distinctive South Indian ancestries associated with Dravidian languages.<ref>Sitalaximi, T "Microsatellite Diversity among Three Endogamous Tamil Populations Suggests Their Origin from a Separate Dravidian Genetic Pool"
:::::::Reordering/rephrasing should result in an ''improved'', well-composed text. It's not about randomly adding text that must have the word "Harappan" in it. For the sake of producing something readable, I advise to propose changes here first and get consensus for it. –] (]) 17:22, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
''Human Biology'' - Volume 75, Number 5, October 2003, pp. 673-685</ref>
::::::::{{ping|Majestic Momentum}} Propose your changes here in the talk page, instead of making bold changes to the longstanding version of the lead. - ] (]) 17:26, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

::::::::You advised me to reorder but the 4rth para is long and its really difficult to reorder .that's why I picked a line from 4rth para and added to 3rd para and cited the same source. I added harappan name because people are more familiar with it as many books from schools universities are printing Harappans or harappans ancestry for Indus people that's why to keep it more nuanced I added it in small bracket and that's it .what do you think? ] (]) 17:52, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
== Possible error ==
:::::::::{{ping|Majestic Momentum}} The sample sets used to estimate percentages were not from Harappa, but from the Indus Periphery horizon, which is clearly mentioned in all sources. Mentioning "Hapappa" in place of it is ]. - ] (]) 17:56, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

::::::::::I have no problem in not naming it as Harappa. Not a big deal. But the whole 3rd and 4rth para is written in such a way that the main ancestry was neglected and minor ancestries such as aasi was highlighted ,deviating the research what it wants to say. That's why I discussed with austronesier and he suggested to reorder the 4rth and 3rd para to highlight the major ancestry. I will try to highlight that and also show the AASI and steppe minor ancestries as well. You can revert again if you think it's not producing something readable and we can further discuss it here in the talk page and sort it out .I think we can create a fair field for all the editors who wants to contribute. Is it okay with you? ] (]) 18:11, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
From the mtDNA section:
:::::::::::{{ping|Majestic Momentum}} That's why I suggest you propose the new changes here in this section, instead of doing it in the article itself. That's how it should be done per ], we should not be edit warring. - ] (]) 18:19, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

::::::::::::This is not edit warring. We are discussing as per rules. Anyways ,you want me post the changes here ? Should i post what changes I make here In detail? Okay with you? ] (]) 18:31, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
''Virtually all modern Central Asian MtDNA M lineages seem to belong to the Eastern Eurasian (Mongolian) rather than the Indian subtypes of haplogroup M, which indicates that no large-scale migration from the present Turkic-speaking populations of Central Asia to India (and vice versa) could have occurred (Kivisild 2000).''
:::::::::::::Yes, exactly, here. The current version of the lead vs your proposed version. - ] (]) 18:49, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

This might be clarified. Migrations were sometimes mostly comprised of males, esp if migrations of conquest, Therefore the lack of Turkic mtDNA does not necessarily mean there was n;t any substantial migration of Turkic men into India ] (]) 08:36, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

:this is correct. we cannot draw our own conclusions. we need to phrase this along the lines of "Kivisild (2000) conclude ..." provided the conclusion ''is'' in the paper. Otherwise remove. ] <small>]</small> 09:18, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

== Bunch of stuff ==

Transfering incoherent material from ]. Some of it seems to be in the article already; whether any sense can be made of the rest remains to be seen.

<blockquote>However (Kivisild 2003a; Kivisild 2003b) have revealed that a high frequency of haplogroup 3 (R1a1) occurs in about half of the male population of Northwestern India and is also frequent in Western Bengal. These results, together with the fact that haplogroup 3 is much less frequent in Iran and Anatolia than it is in India, indicates that haplogroup 3 found among high caste ] did not necessarily originate from Eastern Europeans. The high diversity of haplogroup 3 and 9 in India suggests that these haplogroups may have originated in India (Kivisild 2003a). Studies of Indian scholars showed the R1a lineage forms around 35–45% among all the castes in North Indian population (Namita Mukherjee et al. 2001) and the high frequency of R1a1 present in the indigenous ] and ] tribes of South India making the association with the Brahmin caste more vague. However, a model involving population flow from Southern Asia into Central Asia during Paleolithic interglacial periods with a subsequent R1a1-mediated Neolithic migration of Indo-European-speaking pastoralists back into Southern Asia would also be consistent with these data. A further study (Saha et al 2005) examined R1a1 in South Indian tribals and Dravidian population groups more closely, and questioned the concept of its Indo-Iranian origin. Most recently Sengupta et al. (2006) have confirmed R1a's diverse presence including even Indian tribal and lower castes (the so-called untouchables) and populations not part of the caste system. From the diversity and distinctiveness of microsatellite Y-STR variation they conclude that there must have been an independent R1a1 population in India dating back to a much earlier expansion than the Indo-Aryan migration. The pattern of clustering does not support the model that the primary source of the R1a1-M17 chromosomes in India was a single entry of Indo-European speaking pastoralists from Central Asia. However, the data are not necessarily inconsistent with more complicated demographic scenarios involving multiple entries in both Paleolithic and Neolithic periods and two-way population flows into and out of South Asia. In addition, there remains a difference in haplogroup prevalence between present day Indo-Aryan and Dravidian speakers{{Fact|date=December 2007}} and between upper and lower castes. The preponderant haplogroup amongst a proportion of Indo-Aryan populations and upper castes is R (both R1a and R2) and, amongst tribal groups and lower castes, to a higher extent Dravidian ones, it is ]. The high prevalence of haplogroup R1a (around 50-60%) combined with the relatively low prevalence of haplogroup H in the northwestern portion of the subcontinent (northwestern India and present-day Pakistan) also suggests an affinity between this part of the subcontinent and the Central Asian steppes, perhaps brought about by longstanding two-way population flows. The absence of haplogroup ] (Y-DNA) in Indo-Aryan and Dravidian populations which is found in all other Indo-European populations, in especially large proportions in western Europe, may suggest significant levels of native genetic base for the Indo-Aryan peoples compared to other Indo-European peoples. However, it must be noted that R1b is also not present in significant levels in Slavic and Central Asian populations.</blockquote>

Bafflegab at its finest. ] (]) 07:19, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

== Haplogroup L ==

There is a whole paragraph that looks as self-research (and obviously lacks of any sources):

<blockquote>
Most of the pro-migration papers imply that R1a1 is the genetic marker that is representative of a migration, due to its high frequency in Eurasia. But an equally likely genetic marker is haplogroup L. This haplogroup is present in Greek, Turkish, Lebanese, Iranian, Central Asian, and Indian populations (and Europe, see Kivisild). This marker is found in locations where written sources record the presence of Indo-European languages and people: i.e. Greeks, Hittite, Mitanni, Iranians and Indians. Its peak frequency is found in Indo-Iranian populations. The 'Western Eurasian' components that are found in Indian mtDNA show a distribution closer to that found in the Southern Caucasus and Middle East than to that found in Eastern Europe. There is also the question of why one should assume only one Y haplogroup is representative of the Aryan gene pool. R1a1, R1b, J2, L and H - all of which are present in India and Central and West Asia - are all possibilities. However, haplogroup L has a very low level of diversity in the Punjab. This is suggestive of a recent migration or expansion event in the area, and is supported by the fact that the diversity of R1a1, J2 and haplogroup C is higher in the region. Haplogroup C is supposed to be the remmants of the "Out of Africa" migration of humans, but still retains a high level of diversity. Haplogroup L is also found in South India at relatively high freqencies and has been associated by some (along with J2) with the spread of farming and Dravidian languages. However haplogroup L1 is the dominant one in southern India, hence may represent an expansion event in the South (or elite dominance from the North).
</blockquote>

Haplogroup L does exist in Western Asia (Iran, Turkey) , but it is quite rare. It doesn't seem to justify the hypothesis expressed above and in any case, it should not be self-research but the elaboration of an academic opinion.

H is not present (except maybe erratics and the well known case of the ]) outside of South Asia.

And I really don't understand why macrohaplogroup C (most common in NE Asia and Oceania) is even mentioned in that context, really.

Overall the paragraph looks a very good candidate for deletionist practices. --] (]) 08:25, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

== Rosenberg et al. ==

This article has the much-reproduced graph of populations vs. 7 genetic clusters (]) from the recent but the article text has no discussion of the results of the paper.

It is based on 1200 polymorphisms across the whole genome, while all the genetic discussion currently in the article is based on very restricted, much smaller sets of DNA that are only inherited through matrilineage (mtDNA) or patrilineage (Y-DNA); or on single autosomal genes. Including it would modernize this article into the ] era.

Here are some representative quotes:

*"Populations from India, and groups from ] more generally, form a ], so that individuals placed within this cluster are more genetically similar to each other than to individuals outside the cluster. However, the amount of genetic differentiation among Indian populations is relatively small. The authors conclude that genetic variation in India is distinctive with respect to the rest of the world, but that the level of genetic divergence is smaller in Indians than might be expected for such a geographically and linguistically diverse group."
*"We found that allele frequencies in India showed detectably greater similarity to populations in Europe and the Middle East than to those in East Asia (Figure 4). This result is consistent with the fact that the cluster corresponding to India in Figure 2A subdivides a previously obtained cluster corresponding to Europe, the Middle East, and Central/South Asia ."
*"The only population whose Fst values within India substantially overlapped those of either Europe/Middle East or East Asia was the ] population."
*"Compared to groups that speak Indo-European languages, the groups in our study that speak Dravidian languages (Kannada, Malayalam, Tamil, and Telugu) did not show noticeably different patterns of pairwise F<sub>st</sub> values, and in particular, they did not show a greater F<sub>st</sub> from populations of Europe and the Middle East (Figure 5)."
*"European allele frequencies are often reasonably predictive of frequencies in India, particularly for microsatellites (Figure 7A and 7C). The correlations are increased by using a linear combination of allele frequencies with ~2/3 contribution from Europe/Middle East and ~1/3 contribution from East Asia (Figure 8). At the same time, however, the separate cluster for India in population structure analysis indicates that allele frequencies in India are distinctive, so that predictions obtained based on European and East Asian groups cannot fully explain allele frequencies in Indian populations. This comment applies particularly for the indels (Figure 7B and 7D)"
--] (]) 00:12, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

:Regarding the statement "individuals placed within this cluster are more genetically similar to each other than to individuals outside the cluster" I don't think that is correct. Individuals within the same cluster are more similar to a specific "typical" genotype than to any other specific "typical" genotype. On an interindividual level individuals within a cluster may well be more similar to an individual in a different cluster than they are to an individual in their own cluster. Witherspoon ''et al'' (2007) say that clustering analyses use population level data to classify and not individual level data. When pairs of individuals are compared clusters look a great deal less convincing. Witherspoon ''et al'' (2007) conclude "The fact that, given enough genetic data, individuals can be correctly assigned to their populations of origin is compatible with the observation that most human genetic variation is found within populations, not between them. '''It is also compatible with our finding that, even when the most distinct populations are considered and hundreds of loci are used, individuals are frequently more similar to members of other populations than to members of their own population.'''" (emphasis mine). Where did the quote come from? ] (]) 08:03, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
::Ah, I see, it's a quote from the Rosenberg paper. What a shame that people writing these sorts of papers themselves don't appear to understand exactly what they are measuring. No wonder others get confused. ] (]) 18:07, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

==Name==
What's the notability of this subject? Most of the references eem to discuss India and not South Asia. The introduction is no introduction at all, it doesn't establish the notability of the subject, and there is no attempt to explain exactly what the article is about as a specific coherent subject. There are several articles called "Genetic history of ..." (e.g. ], ]). I suggest that we rename this article ] (or ]). I think it will hang together better then. I'll move to that name in a week or so unless there are any serious objections. ] (]) 08:02, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

== Any sensible Y-chromosome studies? ==
My comment applies more to the research papers than this
article. I know such comments are against Misplaced Pages
policy, but I do pose one relevant request:

Please post link(s) to relevant research paper(s), if any.

Correlations between Indian caste and Y-haplogroup would
be interesting to study. Too bad so many of the studies
are flawed; in some cases the flaws appear to be deliberate
and have political motivation. I'll mention the most
obvious.

(1) Is it politically incorrect in India to distinguish
Kshatriya and Vaisya castes? If not, why are these lumped
together in so many DNA studies? And, if we must lump,
why, in heaven's name, is Kshatriya lumped into
"Middle Caste" in some studies and "Upper Caste" in
others?

(2) Since some surveys combine Upper vs Middle studies with
<i>different</i> definitions into single Upper vs Middle summaries,
one might even guess that the Kshatriya confusion is
deliberate! ... to enhance the appearance of "genetic homogeneity."

(3) As shown in my own crude summary
(at http://james.fabpedigree.com/hindu.htm)
R1a is common among both Brahmin and Sudra but <i>not</i> the
"Middle Castes"; in my page I provide a reason for this.
Yet some studies ignore this and use a flawed statistic
to derive "genetic homogeneity" from the Sudra fact!

(4) Many papers describing Y-chromosome research by caste
<i>discard, unreported, the haplogroup information altogether</i>.
giving only a closeness statistic! Need I explain why this is silly?

(5) mtDNA studies concluding genetic homogeneity of castes
are too laughable for words. Castes are inherited from the
father; mtDNA from mother.

What I would like to see is raw data summarizing three facts
about test individuals: caste, region, haplogroup.
Note that the region information has much importance since,
as the caste system spread to new regions, different indigenous
groups might be rewarded with higher status. (And please
let's don't lump Kshatriya with either Brahmin or Vaisya
depending on which lumping produces the politically
desired statistic!)

For example, there is a very strong
Kshatriya = R2 haplogroup
effect in Northeast India, but this would be invisible
in a region-agnostic study like Sengupta's, even without
Sengupta's unfortunate equation of Kshatriya and Vaisya.

] (]) 06:17, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

== Section on Autosomal markers ==

The section on Autosomal markers is just a collection of unrelated non continuous cunks of information. Please let me know if somebody can make sense out of it and could put it as a palatable section. Else it is up for deletion. ] (]) 05:34, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Done the needfull ] (]) 11:27, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

== Reich study ==

New study , likely to have important implications for genetic history of South Asia. Some of the material has social political implications related to the ]. Basically the study suggests an ancient mixing of two distinct populations, one population similar to central and western Eurasians, and another population related to the ]. ] (]) 18:06, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

== "Sharma et al (2009)" ==

What article is this? If it's , it's very hard to fathom how it even passed peer ''and'' editorial review. Much of it, of course, is very similar in style to so many other articles of its type that are flooding various "journals" these days, in that the authors make portentous claims without ever, even once, stating the actual null hypotheses tested. (Hey, anyone, including my sainted grandmother, can use fancy shmancy statistical software and charting packages. That is still no substitute for actually making sense or being relevant.) But this article hits a new low for sheer shoddiness. Look at Table 1. Half of the rows have percentages which amount to non-integral numbers of persons: e.g., of the 30 West Bengal Brahmins sampled, apparently 1.67 (5.56% or 1/18 of 30) were H1, 21.67 were R1a1 and 6.67 were R2. Never mind the typos (e.g. the first two columns for Gujarat Brahmins should be 3.13, not 3.33) And then, under "RESULTS AND DISCUSSION", without explanation, the sample size switches from 621 in the first section to 510 in the second (the apparent data for which is tucked away in the supplementary document, as "supplementary Table 1"), literally from one paragraph to the next. Why is this agglomeration of graduate student GIGO being cited at all? ] (]) 18:19, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

: Even better (or worse) they cite/quote Poliakov's ''Aryan Myth'' for allegedly philological and anthropological "models" and "evidence". Are these clowns for real? ] (]) 18:27, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

:: In a footnote: "Received 17 August 2008; revised 30 October 2008; accepted 6 November 2008; published online 9 January 2009". '''''Revised!?''''' Unbelievable. This journal is no longer being published through Springer. Does it have any credibility left? ] (]) 01:06, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
:::R1a(1) being indigenous to India is also attested by Underhill (2009). If you had cared to read the article in question you would know that the 621 referred to '''all subjects''' tested whereas the only time the number "510" appears is when the authors are discussing the Y-chromosomes of the ''Brahmins'' in question. Content on this page should not be discussed in isolation of content on the related article ] (which presently favors a South Asian origin of R1a based on many more studies than this one). ] (]) 03:15, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
:::: Have you read the articles or are you parroting your favorite blog-warrior? A full-text search reveals that the number "510" occurs ''exactly once'' in the entirety of the paper, footnotes and all. It is ''not'' explained. According to "supplementary table 1" this 510 consist of, as far as can be made out, 256 "Brahmins" and 254 "Tribals". So it is not about the "Y-chromosomes of the Brahmins in question" as 510 also includes 254 Tribals. As for the 621 that conveniently and promptly dropped out of sight, they had 367 "Brahmins", 227 "Tribals" and 27 "Scheduled Castes". So, not only is the 510 not explained, the 256 and 254 parts of it are not explained either. Care to explain how the numbers match up? And while you're at it, try explaining how "72.22%" of 30 West Bengal Brahmins is a whole number. This paper is utter and total garbage from beginning to end. As for Underhill, don't claim. Produce a direct quote. (The paper isn't about what you would like it to be about) ] (]) 04:10, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 18:49, 21 July 2024

This article is rated Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconMolecular Biology: Genetics / MCB
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Molecular Biology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Molecular Biology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Molecular BiologyWikipedia:WikiProject Molecular BiologyTemplate:WikiProject Molecular BiologyMolecular Biology
???This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Genetics task force (assessed as Mid-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Molecular and Cell Biology task force (assessed as Low-importance).
WikiProject iconHuman Genetic History (inactive)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Human Genetic History, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Human Genetic HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Human Genetic HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Human Genetic HistoryHuman Genetic History
WikiProject iconSouth Asia Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject South Asia, which aims to improve the quality and status of all South Asia-related articles. For more information, please visit the Project page.South AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject South AsiaTemplate:WikiProject South AsiaSouth Asia
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.


Archives
Index
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3
Archive 4

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.


error deleted.2A02:8108:9640:1A68:7975:5573:34AD:ED9D (talk) 08:00, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Lede too long and other redundancies

The lede currently contains two summaries, a very brief one in paragraph three, and a longer one in the fourth paragraph. Then is there is the section "Overview" which has more detail, and finally "Reconstructing South Asian population history" where many of the details in "Overview" are repeated.

This is too much redundancy. Usually, we summarize a detailed section once in the lede. A mid-level summary may appear in a dedicated "Overview" section, which should just cover key points that are further elaborated in specialized sections. I am aware that much of this has grown organically, but time has come for us to take an effort to trim this massive overgrowth. My Bolo is ready, but maybe we want to establish first what is essential for a brief summary in the lede and what isn't. Austronesier (talk) 17:57, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

@Austronesier: If I remember correctly, the 'Overview' section was made (bloated) into a second "Autosomal DNA variation" section by IP socks of WorldCreaterFighter sometime in August-October 2021. Before that it was like this. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 18:05, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
Ugh, not really much better back then 😂 –Austronesier (talk) 18:08, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
@Austronesier: and @Fylindfotberserk: Maybe we shorten the summaries in the lead into just one paragraph (as opposed to two); reduce the overview section to only inform about relevant events: eg. compact information on peopling and migration events, as well as short info about the respective ancestral components (name, relationship, etc.); and move the more detailed informations and study views into the "Reconstructing South Asian population history" (kind of rewritting it). Maybe we try to "dechronologify" the "Autosomal DNA variation" section a bit too. - I have just prepared a possible version here:. It would be nice if you can review it, if we may use that one. Thanks. Regards–Wikiuser1314 (talk) 14:06, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
The lead looks kinda OK (small changes can be discussed). The overview seems too short, as big as the lead, to the point that we can merge both (this one for example doesn't have an 'overview' section). If we are not merging them, the overview section can be a bit bigger, 50% of the original?, plus with info on the haplogroups restored. Skimming through the 'autosomal' section, I believe the Yang 2022 part needs to be trimmed and merged, especially since the paper is largely a summary of what Narasimhan, Shinde and Yelmen discovered as far as AASI is concerned (Do we need large chunks of quotes from the papers?). For a proposed lineage, the article already seems to have more coverage of that particular component (AASI), need to balance those. Let's see what Austronesier has to say. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 18:57, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
I agree it's a good start. But it still needs more "dechronologifying", after all, we don't want to present a history of research, but rather the present consensus of our knowledge about the topic. Some old sources might have been important building blocks to reach this consensus, but we have to break "the A said this, then B said that, then C said this etc."-pattern. Narasimhan et al. (2018) and Narasimhan et al. (2019) have separate citations, that's also a relic of the original version. This is why anyone wanting to add preprints in Misplaced Pages should get their balls wired and receive an electric shock when the peer-review version comes out so they remember to update the citation ;)
Personally, I think the "short" summary was good enough for the lede, while current draft summary makes a good "Overview" section (if needed at all; personally, I think it's a nice thing to have). Can't say more at the moment, because I'm enthusiastically worknig on a somewhat related project in my sandbox. –Austronesier (talk) 21:23, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments, I will try to "dechronologify" as much as possible. Also trying to find a smoother solution for the lead/overview. Regards.–Wikiuser1314 (talk) 12:24, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
@Wikiuser1314: This version's structuring is better than the current one you are trying in your sandbox IMO. The lead is succinct. After that many versions over the years, an overview section seems important, needs a little more in my opinion and would be better if kept separate from the lede. This image should be avoided, since terms like AAI (AAA) and ATB, etc are not mainstream unlike ANI, ASI, and AASI. The former only show up papers by the Basu and those group of scientists. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 11:37, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
@Fylindfotberserk: Ok, thanks for your input, than I will use the previous version.–Wikiuser1314 (talk) 11:43, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Regarding this edit: I can see that the statement "closest to Southern Indian tribal groups" as such is wrong, but shouldn't we at least mention somewhere that the highest levels of AASI-ancestry are found among Southern Indian tribal groups? –Austronesier (talk) 10:30, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Maybe in the "autosomal" section. Now that you mention, I see that the WP:OR part - "Paniya and Irula as better proxies for indigenous South Asian (AASI)" - is present in both the "overview" and the "autosomal" section. Needs to be corrected. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 12:50, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
Loads of other things need to be corrected too. I've just exemplarily changed a passage based on Shinde et al. (2019). Actually, they note that the same set of qpAdm-sources has also been used for the Indus Periphery Cline in Narasimhan et al. (2019). I also don't like the statement "but others (Yelmen et al. 2019) note that both are deeply diverged from each other"; "but" insinuates that others haven't been aware of this before, which gives a wrong picture since Narasimhan et al. literally say the same thing ("even though the two populations are deeply diverged from one another in time..."). Narasimhan et al. describe a near-trifucation of AASI, AHG and Papuans, with a minimal shared branch length of 3 for AHG and Papuans; Yelmen et al. 2019 also split out their "S" component first in a near-trifucation of AASI, AHG and East Asians (no shared branch length given for the latter; maybe its buried somewhere in the Supplementary Information?).
@Austronesier: Yes . This line - "The Andamanese people are among the relatively most closely related modern populations to the AASI component and henceforth used as an (imperfect) proxy for it" is problematic especially when Reich 2009 is used as one of the sources. AASI wasn't coined then. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 18:16, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

A relevant book

Someone should summarize this book: https://books.google.co.in/books/about/Genomic_Diversity_in_People_of_India.html?id=UbI2EAAAQBAJ&source=kp_book_description&redir_esc=y here. It seems to be a relevant book. @Wikiuser1314 @Austronesier Ionian9876 (talk) 03:09, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Ionian9876:, the book is focused "on mtDNA and Y-Chromosome polymorphism", as such I would not consider it that relevant. It may be relevant for haplogroup diversity, but we all know now that haplogroups are very affected by founder effects and bottlenecks, and may tell us nothing about the genetic makeup of individuals/ethnic groups. Regards.–Wikiuser1314 (talk) 07:57, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Male Yamnaya component not attested in prehistoric India.

" the incoming mostly male-mediated Yamnaya-Steppe component to form the Ancestral North Indians (ANI)," I wonder whence the writer got this intelligence? Core Yamnaya had no R1a, and it remains a riddle how the R1a-Z93-94 reached India and where and for when it has been attested there.2A02:8108:9640:1A68:6CBA:FF08:B1F3:E6ED (talk) 16:56, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Pl. Join the discussion

@45.129.86.225 and @PadFoot2008 I suggest both of you to join the discussions at talk page with your respective points and not to edit war any further. Bookku (talk) 06:28, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree to join this discussion. IP, I request you to join this discussion too and not edit war any further. What you are doing here is promoting a fringe theory. The main article (see Dravidian peoples) itself mentions that Dravidians are Indigenous to South Asia, but "might" have an Iranic origin (also see the hypothetical Elamo-Dravidian language family). However it is unproven as of now and a fringe theory. I shall also advise you to be civil. Also as far as I am aware "Hindutva" (incorrectly) claims that Aryans are indigenous to India (see Indigenous Aryanism). I never made such a claim. PadFoot2008 10:01, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
Obviously Dravidian speakers have deep rooted ancient Iranian ancestry. It isn't fringe per say as far as genetics is concerned, just that it is not well discussed. Obviously the nativism associated with 'Dravidian' speakers is politically motivated (Periyarist movement for example). Since we are discussing genetics here explicitly, I don't see a reason not to mention the arguments of some researchers and attribute to them. Note that Dravidian speaking mid / agricultural castes are majority Iran related, even the dalit and tribals are quite heavy in that ancestry. The few years older - Narasimhan and Shinde papers suggested that Proto-Dravidian might have origins in the IVC-InPe (which is in accordance with the commonly accepted view of "IVC were Dravidian speakers"), and considering how heavy the Iranian part of the samples were (Rakhigarhi even), it isn't far fetched to assume the origin of the language family to be in Iran, especially among a group of people that were related to but formed a distinct line with the Belt Cave HGs and Ganj Dareh herders as demonstrated by Shinde 2019, and these two recent researches seems to allude to that. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 11:38, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
Terminology question (because a lot of arguments are caused by terminology) when you say "Iranian" do you literally mean "Iranian speaking" or do you mean something like "from the West Asian area which is now Iran"?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:44, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
"Iranian Neolithic" to be precise and yes "from the West Asian area which is now Iran". - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 11:49, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
@Fylindfotberserk, I am fine with the status quo as it currently says "maybe". Also, the middle castes (Reddy, etc.) have heavy Iran-related, as well as Steppes ancestry, indicating that the these might have been descendents of Indo-Aryan-speaking Ancestral North Indians who might've mixed with the AASI Dravidians. On the other hand, other castes (which form a bulk of the population) and Dravidian tribes have about two-thirds or more AASI ancestry, though with significant Ancient Iranic ancestry, but negligible to no Steppes ancestry, the Iranic ancestry likely coming from Harappan migrations after the decline of IVC. PadFoot2008 12:07, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
I agree with Fyl here. There is no contradiction, although we should be careful to include highly speculative (or fringe) proposals such as Elamo-Dravidian in this context. I have repeatedly explained to PadFoot2008 that Dravidian languages are indigenous to South Asia only in relation to the arrival of Indo-Aryan speakers four millenia ago. That doesn't preclude that the predecessors of present-day Dravidian languages also migrated into South Asia from outside prior to the Indo-Aryan migration (nor does it preclude that certain IE-speaking tribal groups can well be considered "indigenous peoples" in a modern context; this is, however, off-topic here). Proto-Dravidian is most certainly native to South Asia as Krishnamurti has shown based on basic vocabulary that can be reconstructed for Proto-Dravidian and that is compatible with a South Asian physical, faunal and floral environment. But this only applies to the time right before Proto-Dravidian diversified into its daughter branches. Before that, the ancestors of the Proto-Dravidian speakers might well have arrived from outside; or more precisely speaking: outsiders may well have significantly (or dominantly?) contributed to the genepool of Proto-Dravidian speakers. There's nothing fringe about that.
Finally, keep in mind that linguistic and genetic diversity to not necessarily match. Entire speaker groups can undergo language shift through social interaction without or with only little geneflow involved. It is highly likely that next to the extant language families (and isolates), there were other language families in South Asia that were completely submerged by the major current language families. There is not reason to assume a priori that AASI ancestry (or any other ancestral component) must be a tracer-dye that can be associated with a specific language family, e.g. Dravidian. –Austronesier (talk) 12:24, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
(edit conflict)@PadFoot2008, Mid/Agricultural-castes like Kamma, Kapu, Reddy, Vallar, Velama apparently form the bulk in the Dravidian states and they have negligible steppe. They are majority ancient Iran derived (both of Belt Cave/Ganj Dareh like and Namazga/BMAC like) and are very much what should be the late IVC types migrating out after its fall. It is possible that these heavy Iran IVC migrant imparted their language into the existing high AASI tribal groups instead. Just did a model on Mala tribe and got around 34 to 39 percent Iran Neolithic related.
The IVC were (Proto)Dravidian-speakers per majority / general consensus and they were mostly Iran N derived. It is far more likely that the Iran N part of their ancestry is associated with the language. Not sure how a 'proposed' group of hunter-gatherers (AASI), who didn't have much in the name of society (as far as we know) and having minimal impact on the DNA of Early IVC would be instrumental in forming one of the oldest civilizations/languages of the world. Considering the existence of far older language isolates like Nihali, it is likely that the various streams of AASI spoke these languages/isolates. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 12:42, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
@Fylindfotberserk, Firstly, Middle castes don't form a bulk of the population of South India. Take Tamil Nadu for instance, Backward Castes (45.5%), Most Backward Castes (23.6%) and Scheduled Castes (23.7%) together form 92.8% of Tamil Nadu's population. In Andhra Pradesh, Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes together account for 74.6% of the state's population.
Secondly, both Dravidian peoples and Indus Valley Civilisation articles mention that Proto-Dravidian might have been spoken there. Mostly, only scholars that support the Elamo-Dravidian hypothesis, support that the language might have been spoken in the IVC. However a reconstruction of Proto-Dravidian shows that it's vocabulary is characteristic of the dry deciduous forests of central and peninsular India, not Iran or the Indus Valley. It is certainly not the majority view. PadFoot2008 16:23, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
By 'mid-caste', I meant the non-high caste non-dalit non SC and ST population based on this. The Nadar caste which I believe is considered BC, are very similar to the Vellalar who are Iran N heavy. Even with the Madiga, an SC group, I get ~43% Iran related. The hypothesis that support a peninsular origin of Dravidian languages are based on re-construction of a Proto-language based on a few root words, but doesn't align with archaeology, genetics and material culture. There was an obvious large scale migration from IVC towards the south. I believe there are more proponents of IVC origin of Dravidian languages, many of whom are not necessarily supporters of the Elamo-Davidian hypothesis, bolstered by newer researches like these-this , that go hand in hand with linguistics and genetics. Note that this comes from pre-Vedic IVC, which might be a relict of the ANE people, and Iran N has copious amounts of ANE ancestry. Anyway, this is becoming too forumy, I'd suggest addition of these two sources, without changing any text. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 17:38, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Why is even the IVC discussed here? The proposed IP edit doesn't even mention it. But for the record, the statement "only scholars that support the Elamo-Dravidian hypothesis, support that the language might have been spoken in the IVC" (once again) betrays an unfamiliarity with the relevant literature. There are scholars like Asko Parpola who argue for a Dravidian affiliation the language of the IVC without ever supporting the Elamo-Dravidian hypothesis. And again, you're conflating genetic with linguistic evidence. I won't repeat what I have written above, but your claim that linking the introduction of Iranian hunter-gatherer-related ancestry with the introduction of the language that evolved into Proto-Dravidian on South Asian soil is fringe needs a source that calls it so. Sure, this link is sometimes embedded in an Elamo-Dravidian framework, mostly by Indian geneticists who uncritically accept the Elamo-Dravidian hypothesis as an established fact, but sure not by all scholars (cf. Mukhopadhyay's paper).
In case the IP will ever join this discussion: of course, Nature does publish fringe articles. To get published in Nature, it "only" needs a paper that appears to the editors worthy of further discussion by the scientific community. For articles in the core expertise of Nature, the threshold for inclusion is quite high, but for articles outside of their expertise, it can be astonishingly low, as in the case of said article by Mukhopadhyay. Likewise, a sensationalist title like "Human Y chromosome haplogroup L1-M22 traces Neolithic expansion in West Asia and supports the Elamite and Dravidian connection" (what does "Elamite and Dravidian connection" even mean?) is also not indicative of a differentiated discussion. Indeed, their conclusion is all iffy: "if Elamo-Dravidan is valid, then our findings support it". LOL. –Austronesier (talk) 17:46, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
@Fylindfotberserk: Instead of citing lesser works (albeit published in good journals), why don't we use Narasimhan et al. (2019)? On page 12 (first column, second paragraph), they propose a link between the Dravidian languages and the Iranian-related portion of ASI ancestry. –Austronesier (talk) 17:55, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
I am not proposing a change in the article text, I think the status quo is good. Also, I initially claimed that it was a fringe theory (sorry, my bad), but in my previous comment, I revised it to say that it is not a majority view (as far as I am aware). I see that there is a significant section of scholars who propose the link between Dravidians and Ancient Iranians. Also to @Fylindfotberserk, I never refuted the large-scale migration of IVC people(s) to the peninsula after the decline of IVC, that is, in fact, what likely contributed Iranian ancestry in Dravidians. What I meant to say is that it doesn't necessarily support an Iranic origin of the Dravidians (but it is indeed possible). PadFoot2008 18:06, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
(edit conflict)@Austronesier: Perhaps, why the text is there in the first place. Narasimhan is referenced at the end of the paragraph, alongwith a bunch of other references. You know who jumbled up all those . If necessary we can attach the specific quote. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 18:16, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

South asian genetics .

engage in discussion. Majestic Momentum (talk) 14:57, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

We use research papers as source. The term you are referring is Indus Periphery-related ancestry, and that is already well covered in the article. We do not need extra information on it from news sources. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 15:23, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Quality sources are unnegiotiable for Misplaced Pages (see: WP:SCHOLARSHIP), especially for scientific topics that receive a lot of media attention and all the simplicism and inaccuracies that come with it. We have just trashed badly sourced information in a another article that claimed that the Rakhigarhi individual was genetically most similar to present-day South Indian tribal groups—very incorrect and very much not representing what the two seminal papers of 2019 actually say. And now we have a blanket statement that was apparently made by Reich in interviews on the occasion of the publication of the Rakhgarhi paper. Reich's statement as quoted in the press definitely makes more sense than the rubbish about high affinities with South Indian tribal groups, but: you need to cite a reliable, peer-reviewed academic publication in support for such a statement. Maybe there is one; if there is, then we can gladly weave in some text about it into the article, and probably also into the lede section, which summarizes the article. –Austronesier (talk) 15:36, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
https://reich.hms.harvard.edu/sites/reich.hms.harvard.edu/files/inline-files/eaat7487.full_.pdf
Yes ,sure. I understand you completely and agree your concerns. But david reich indeed said this not just with media but he clealry says in his own research. In the above pdf ,in 5th page under south asia, 2nd point he clearly said that indus Periphery cline contrubuted the majority which he named them as harappans with media that's why the confusion .both are same. Would like to sort this thing out and i wanna add this pdf source too along with article ? What do you think? Majestic Momentum (talk) 15:47, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
But we already have exactly that key point from Narasimhan et al. (2019) in the fourth paragraph of the lede, in case you have missed it: ... the Indus Periphery Cline around ~5400–3700 BCE, which constitutes the main ancestral heritage of most modern South Asian groups. Note that Narasimhan et al. (2019) talk about the Indus Periphery Cline in toto, not about one specimen (= Rakhigarhi "I6113", only covered in Shinde et al. (2019)) that formed part of it.
And FWIW, let's give a shout-out to Fyl who added it 2 years ago :) –Austronesier (talk) 15:54, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
I agree with you and it came to my notice as I read but in introduction it was not much highlighted it was talking about AASI even though it was a minor ancestry, specially i want to add it in first 3 paragraphs .thats why i want to add only a single line in the introduction. I will try to contribute if i have any valuable information for the rest of the body if necessary but for now i hope you agree on my request about adding that single line in the introduction. So that readers will get clarity when they read. Hope you agree. What do you think Austronesier? Majestic Momentum (talk) 16:12, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
That single line would be quite non sequitur in the first two paragraphs as these provide an explaination what the topic of "Genetics and archaeogenetics of South Asia" actually comprises, and what kind of scientific research it is based on. "Harappan-related" is also a bit problematic when academic sources talk about the "Indus Periphery Cline" here. Even the latter is problematic considering that 11 out of 12 specimen do not originate from the IVC, but from Gonur Tepe and Shahr-e Sukhteh, but WP echoes the terminology of best sources, so we go with that. Maybe Fyl can think of a rephrasing/reordering of the content of the third and fourth paragraphs so that the undeniably main ancestral source for most South Indian populations gets more due visibility here. –Austronesier (talk) 16:33, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
sure ,I will try to reorder/rephrase the content of 3rd and 4rth paragraphs. Thanks. Majestic Momentum (talk) 16:48, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Reordering/rephrasing should result in an improved, well-composed text. It's not about randomly adding text that must have the word "Harappan" in it. For the sake of producing something readable, I advise to propose changes here first and get consensus for it. –Austronesier (talk) 17:22, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
@Majestic Momentum: Propose your changes here in the talk page, instead of making bold changes to the longstanding version of the lead. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 17:26, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
You advised me to reorder but the 4rth para is long and its really difficult to reorder .that's why I picked a line from 4rth para and added to 3rd para and cited the same source. I added harappan name because people are more familiar with it as many books from schools universities are printing Harappans or harappans ancestry for Indus people that's why to keep it more nuanced I added it in small bracket and that's it .what do you think? Majestic Momentum (talk) 17:52, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
@Majestic Momentum: The sample sets used to estimate percentages were not from Harappa, but from the Indus Periphery horizon, which is clearly mentioned in all sources. Mentioning "Hapappa" in place of it is original research. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 17:56, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
I have no problem in not naming it as Harappa. Not a big deal. But the whole 3rd and 4rth para is written in such a way that the main ancestry was neglected and minor ancestries such as aasi was highlighted ,deviating the research what it wants to say. That's why I discussed with austronesier and he suggested to reorder the 4rth and 3rd para to highlight the major ancestry. I will try to highlight that and also show the AASI and steppe minor ancestries as well. You can revert again if you think it's not producing something readable and we can further discuss it here in the talk page and sort it out .I think we can create a fair field for all the editors who wants to contribute. Is it okay with you? Majestic Momentum (talk) 18:11, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
@Majestic Momentum: That's why I suggest you propose the new changes here in this section, instead of doing it in the article itself. That's how it should be done per WP:BRD, we should not be edit warring. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 18:19, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
This is not edit warring. We are discussing as per rules. Anyways ,you want me post the changes here ? Should i post what changes I make here In detail? Okay with you? Majestic Momentum (talk) 18:31, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Yes, exactly, here. The current version of the lead vs your proposed version. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 18:49, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Categories: