Talk:Peopling of India

Start

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reply by Bodhisharma7: Hunnjazal,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This study pretty much says that Dravidians = Australoids:

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

Here's another study which equates Australoids with Dravidians:

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

Here's another study:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

ANI and 'before 12,500 years ago'

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

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

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

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

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

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

Munda

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

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

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

Sources on "Negrito"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reich & the Andaman-islanders

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

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

Haplogroups

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

Glacial period and Paleolithic revolution

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ASI and Andaman split

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

Early migrations: order of sections

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

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

• We could maybe add section for reich et al's early human diversions timeline that i added here, before Ancestral components. [1]
• We need to add this first point[2] in Glacial period and Paleolithic revolution, regrading dispensation of F and it's descendants during post Glacial period.
• Name also needs to be changed to peopling of Indian subcontinent or South Asia as langauge/ethnicity/civilization overlap with various countries.
• I have re-worded & updated this in Ancestral components based on Reich et al study : According to Reich et al. (2009), ASI, 'Proto-East-Asia' and Andaman islanders split around 42,500 years ago. Andamanese were unique in that they were the only population in the study without ANI ancestry. Kannadiga (talk) 16:26, 28 March 2016 (UTC)