Talk:Caste system in India/Archive 12

1. I took out sentences with cite pending requests, then added a summary and cites.

2. I removed the Gupta cite on medieval India, because it is stating something else there. Gupta also admits his doubts and uncertainty about his feudalism theory on pp. 221-224. I have moved Gupta cite to origins section, with a summary from his review and from others. The article needs more summary from recent scholarly reviews on caste system in ancient India, and on caste system in medieval India. Is anyone planning to add a summary on these?

Paulmuniz (talk) 17:39, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, Gupta represents the consensus of Indian historians that says that the Jatis were formed in the post-Maurya period. We now also have solid genetic evidence of endogamy of castes from around this time. So, I think this material should stay. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 17:43, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Which page? Paulmuniz (talk) 17:47, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Reich 2009 etc. Regarding Gupta: Bayly also mentions post-Mauryan origins for the jatis. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:06, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Gupta, page 212, second para. Cites Ghurye 1969, p. 114, and says "It is widely believed that these guilds crystallized into jatis."- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:26, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

That is a massive edit to make in one hit and it introduces an awful lot of fiddly problems, simple maintenance issues being one (eg: don't use US spellings, try to stick with {{sfnp}}, read WP:WORDSASWORDS). It's going to keep me busy for days, assuming that the content (and the removal thereof) is even correct. - Sitush (talk) 19:27, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

I can see copyright violations/close paraphrasing in there, and have just commented out one bit for that reason. I'm also not convinced by the sweeping changes to the jati sub-section, eg: the jatis - a word that means birth - is translated as "caste." seems to have replaced a rather more diffident etymology relating to changing meanings over time. This is going to be a nightmare to untangle: please can you break things down in future. - Sitush (talk) 19:39, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Sitush, I do not know non-US spellings, will have to rely on your or someone's kindness. I believe I added inline attribution, to avoid copyright violation issues - but will check again. Joshua Jonathan, which page of Reich and Bayly books? Kautilya3, okay thank you, but then we need to fix the page number and revise the wording. The sentence can be interpreted as, "jatis crystalised from the 7th to the 12th century" - which is what I am waiting a page number or cite for. Paulmuniz (talk) 19:57, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I'll sort out the spellings. The spelling issues include simple things like being consistent in using sudra or shudra, in which example we should usually use the latter because that is the spelling of our article, per WP:COMMONNAME. I've got a copy of Bayly here, so I'll align the editions with page numbers and fix as many other cites as I can. Attribution is not an excuse for violating copyright, as you have done: I've just realised that you are fairly new here and suggest that you try to familiarise yourself with WP:COPYRIGHT because it is a significant legal issue. - Sitush (talk) 20:25, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. I will recheck my edits. Paulmuniz (talk) 21:15, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Joshua Jonathan, I now have access to the Reich's paper. I do not see jati, guild or feudal era discussed in that genome paper. Did you have another Reich reference in mind? Paulmuniz (talk) 22:02, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

See WP:Genetic research on the origins of India's population. My favourite is the Moorjani et al. (2013), which has the latest and most detailed results. - Kautilya3 (talk) 22:47, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Kautilya3, Interesting stuff, but I wonder if Genome research should be in this caste article, yet. It is primary, fresh, tentative, evolving science. I have read genome papers, from Toomas Kivisild or someone, suggesting genetic marker evidence for ancient migrations out of India. The "out of India" stuff is a fringe theory to serious scholars. Genome scholarship on caste are similarly all over the spectrum. I would recommend waiting till major high quality reviews on caste and genomics appear, and till then not summarizing primary sources on genomic studies. But, if editor Joshua Jonathan and you feel these are okay, I defer. Sitush, I hope quoting with credit is okay with copyright policies; I have tried to learn from the recent edits of editor Joshua Jonathan. While you are all giving me a hard time, I feel you do so to ensure a "quality article". I am a silent admirer, and hoping for more hard time. Paulmuniz (talk) 02:55, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Regarding Bayly: it wasn't her. I just checked the source. I have no idea which source it was, then. I read an article by Gupta from 1980, From Varna to Jati, Journal of Contemporary Asia, and I read part of a book with an extensive explanation on the development of varna and jati, which I found after searching on "varna and jati". Ah yes: Gupta (2000), Interrogating Caste: Understanding Hierarchy and Difference in Indian Society, chapter 8. Apologies for the confusion.

Regarding reich: I used the online version, and gave a direct quote. Reich is a solid name, with a long history on genome-research. The fact that he pairs genome-admixture to caste-endogamy is definitely worth mentioning.

Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:18, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

@Paulmuniz: We don't need to include the genomic research for now. But the point is that you have eliminated the mention of the ancient origin of jatis in the post-Maurya period, which is a widely accepted theory (and it is also supported by the genomic research). - Kautilya3 (talk) 07:47, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

There is a currently a quote from A. L. Basham in the article that says that we do not have evidence for jatis until "comparatively late times". It is not clear what "comparatively late" means. We have Ghurye telling us that the jatis were formed during the post-Maurya times, and he should override Basham. But on p. 149, Basham himself says that, in the Vedic literature, people of different trades and professions were catalogued as if they were different species. His contention is that we have "no evidence of these groups being endogamous and commensal." That is why evidence of endogamy is important. That is the missing piece of evidence that the historians lacked, until now. The genomic research fills this missing piece. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:18, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

No detailed comment on the genomic issue yet because I'm still working my way through things. I'll just say for now that we can't rely on one paper in what is a rapidly evolving scientific technique: I'm still trying to get my head round how they can even backdate all this stuff to X number of years, bearing in mind that we each of the DNA of millions of our ancestors (think about it) and, indeed, we all have some ancestors from whom we have absolutely no DNA traces at all now. Genetics is great for criminal profiling etc because it is being used in the present or near-past but using it for the early history purposes just seems fraught with problems and, indeed, time and again that has been shown to be true. It is why people such as Boing! said Zebedee and Qwyrxian were always so reluctant to even allow genetic research into caste articles, and it seems that many involved in this present article hold the same general view.

Just on the basis that Ghurye predates Basham by 20-odd years, I'm not sure that we can say that Ghurye should over-ride him. They were both respected in their time. That said, both sources are aged now and I'm looking towards creating a loose chronology of the changes in opinion over time. As an example, according to Dumont, the issue of whether jati has its origins in religion or social circumstance dates back to at least the 17th century, which is not at all the impression which our article has been presenting. - Sitush (talk) 11:43, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

I've just reverted a change to a section heading here. It may well be the case that the survey we cite produced the stated outcome but it is also quite obviously the case that caste is still a major thing in India. Yes, it may be weakening in importance and, yes, we probably need to delve further regarding that, as with much else in the article, but to say that it has gone when literally thousands of caste-based marriage agencies, political parties, pressure groups and the like exist just seems to defy the claimed notion of "dissolution" made in the heading change.

I am assuming that "dissolution" used in this context means "ending", as in "dissolution of parliament". If some other meaning is intended then I suspect it is a less common usage but feel free to explain. - Sitush (talk) 08:35, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

@Sitush: I think "loosening", as in "loosening of a knot", is not an appropriate word here. However, "dissolution", as in "dissolution of slavery", is an appropriate term to describe the eradication of a social system by both laws and voluntary reforms. However, as the caste system has not ended, we may choose to write: "gradual dissolution". -Kenfyre (talk) 06:15, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

I prefer "loosening," which implies that the significance of caste has been reducing. Dissolution is quite unlikely to ever happen, but the role of caste in society can be reduced. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 08:46, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

I prefer "gradual dissolution"; the fact that gradual dissolution in the caste system is indeed taking place can be gauged by the fact that several inter-caste marriages are now taking place. "Loosening" is simply too vague and ambiguous a word to use in this context.Soham321 (talk) 16:18, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

@Kautilya3:Good proposal. We should write "Falling signification of the caste system". I don't claim the complete dissolution will happen in near or far future. However, "gradual dissolution" indicates the direction in which the society is moving, that is towards dissolution, not that it will actually reach it. "Loosening" is too vague and does not indicate the direction of reforms/regression to a first time reader of the article. -Kenfyre (talk) 08:22, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

"Gradual dissolution" implies that it will go. Use "weakening" or "loosening", neither of which are remotely vague and both of which tie in nicely with the current theories that the system became "rigid" in earlier times. I'm wondering if there might be an English-as-second-language issue here. Could that affect things? - Sitush (talk) 08:58, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

i prefer "weakening" to "loosening". I am ignoring your irrelevant talk. Soham321 (talk) 09:11, 30 June 2015 (UTC) Having said that i prefer "gradual dissolution" to "weakening" on the ground that it is very obvious that the caste system will eventually go away because of the large number of inter-caste marriages that are now taking place. However, i will not press this point.Soham321 (talk) 09:19, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

I think you have had this link before but maybe you are not bothering to read it - see WP:OR. - Sitush (talk) 09:54, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Okay, then. "Weakening" is far better than "loosening", weakening has a good sense of direction in which the society is moving. -Kenfyre (talk) 11:01, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

It looks like people are tending to prefer my suggestion of changing Loosening to Weakening. Does anyone object to doing this? I know you were unhappy with the earlier proposal (dissolution), Kautilya3, but I'm unsure of your view regarding this term. - Sitush (talk) 11:46, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

GaneshPrasad et al. 2012 contains interesting info on the development of the caste-system in south India:

" It is therefore most likely that the Varna system was superimposed on the pre-existing and historically attested social system without significant population transfer or input, implementing a new social hierarchy and order during the Pallava/Chola period from the 6th through 12th centuries CE [15], [22]. However, the implementation of the Varna system may have not been uniform across preexisting non-tribal populations since many of the populations within DLF and tribes do not practice either Vedic rituals or have very definite patrilineal system and clan exogamy. Overall, our results suggest that the genetic impact of Brahmin migrations into TN has been minimal and had no major effect on the establishment of the genetic structure currently detected in the region."

And also:

"we estimate that social stratification for both tribal and non-tribal MPGs began between 6 Kya and 4 Kya, and detectable admixture between them has not occurred over the past 3 Kya, thereby allowing them to retain their genetic identity through cultural endogamy."

Toucher for Twobells et al.! But, it does not mean that the British did not have an extensive influence on the emergence of the present-day constellation of the caste-system! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:27, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

This is a good review of the paper referred to by Joshua: http://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/science/caste-system-an-indigenous-invention-in-south-india/article4290662.ece Soham321 (talk) 09:39, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

This is not an unusual opinion and has been said in various forms for at least 40 years or so, without even needing to refer to genetics. As far as possible, it is always best to keep genetic analysis out of Indian articles (probably out of all articles, but India is what I know best). - Sitush (talk) 08:31, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

And I see that we now have a "genetic studies" section. Please can we bin it? It isn't necessary, it is invariably confusing for the layman, it is new science, often contradictory and based on massive assumptions about demographics/population movements etc. The stuff usually includes woolly phrasing - "may be", "possibly", "likely" etc - and often ends up concluding that more work needs to be done. Basically, and as had been said at numerous articles by numerous people in the past, it adds nothing. - Sitush (talk) 08:35, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't like the current section, it has much quotes. But, I think the genetic studies section should remain. The section should be short and precise. It is should summarise which markers were used, from where the samples were taken and what were the conclusions. Given the article cites scholar from softer science, I don't see why the genetics section be removed. -Kenfyre (talk) 08:48, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

... and there we go. Do you have any idea how many ordinary people understand the concept of "markers" and statistical sampling etc? They are not easy concepts, although I admit that schools are now teaching the basics. And you've still missed my main point, while removing the section would obviously resolve your own issue regarding quotes. - Sitush (talk) 08:53, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree that most lay readers can't read and understand the genetics articles. However, the conclusions stated there can be used here. The results are definitive and earth-shaking. They can settle the otherwise interminable debates between postcolonialists that might push the view that the British "constructed" the caste system, and the traditionalists that believe that it was an "ancient fact of Hindu life." - Kautilya3 (talk) 09:08, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Indeed. Provided that the conclusions are reasonably "firm". If they include a lot of provisos, as is usually the case, then they're useless. - Sitush (talk) 09:50, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

This is a nice summary of the 2013 American Journal of Human Genetics paper--details of which i had given earlier in this talk page: https://hms.harvard.edu/news/genetics-proves-indian-population-mixture-8-8-13 Soham321 (talk) 09:31, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

@Sitush: I am actually against quotes, because they tell the conclusion and don't explain how were arrived at. The current section should be edited so that it would summarise different papers separately. A standard summary would be In 2011 Mait Metspalu et al., 600,000 SNP markers genotyped in 142 samples from 30 ethnic groups in India were analysed, notably MSTN and DOK5, due to their proposed links to lipid metabolism and type 2 diabetes. The study found that more Indian shared ancestry with Western Europeans than Eastern Europeans. But the ancestry components were older than the purported Indo-Aryan invasion of 3,500 YBP. It is readable to the layperson, that he can ignore the irrelevant scholarly parts. Given that many mainstream newspapers are now reporting these studies, although many times haphazardly, I don't see why we can't do a better job. -Kenfyre (talk) 09:45, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

That is complete gibberish. If journalists are writing that in mainstream newspapers etc then they're insane. - Sitush (talk) 09:52, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Actually, that is a good summary of the paper. But, we should include the genetic studies in this article and in a proper manner. -Kenfyre (talk) 10:15, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

It seem like a good summary of the paper to you but I guarantee it is completely meaningless to most people. We should avoid jargon as much as possible. - Sitush (talk) 11:28, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

I'd prefer to inregrate those two articles within the history subsections. Details on the markers could be placed in notes. And Sitush' point is a good point; genetics tend ot derail. But, on the other hand: Reich and GaneshPrasad raise questions which are relevant in this context. It's also fair toward Twobells to include this info too. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:24, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

You may have missed it but Paulmuniz pretty much says the same thing as me. - Sitush (talk) 11:04, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree with his proposal to avoid outlier papers for now. We should limit ourselves to the most reliable journals. -Kenfyre (talk) 12:47, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

This is a good proposal to leave the markers in the notes. -Kenfyre (talk) 12:47, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

I think this paper is of questionable value. First of all, it predates Moorjani et al (2013), which is rather the definitive genetic analysis of the Indian populations. Their results show that the ANI-ASI admixture started about 2,200 BC and pervades the entire Indian mainland. Even the tribals and Dalit populations of South India have ANI genes among them, and the admixture dates are well before the 300 BC. This paper is only claiming that there was practice of endogamy in South India before the arrival of the "Indo-Aryans" and the "Varna system". They don't say when this is supposed to have happened. The "conclusion" that Paulmuniz Joshua Jonathan added as a footnote is not a conclusion of the genetic analysis, rather their conclusion from the Sangam literature! I think this is totally unscientific and questionable. The writing is also quite poor and I can't make head or tail of most of their sentences. I think it is not worthy of citation on Wikipedia. Sorry. - Kautilya3 (talk) 18:47, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) ... and since no-one is really sure when or indeed if various groups arrived in India, the entire structure falls at the first hurdle. That's what I meant when I was referring above to the massive assumptions that these genetic researchers make: they create a house of cards and, mixing my metaphors, I think a lot of them construct walled-gardens also. FWIW, I gave up trying to read that particular one because it was so badly written - I'm glad that someone managed to see it through to the end! - Sitush (talk) 18:59, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Kautiliya3, okay, but you are assigning to me footnote/text I didn't add. Someone else did. What I added was a different quote, "Coalescence analysis suggested that the social stratification was established 4,000 to 6,000 years ago and there was little admixture during the last 3,000 years, implying a minimal genetic impact of the Varna (caste) system from the historically-documented Brahmin migrations into the area." If the Genetic section is retained in this article, this quote may be more relevant. Paulmuniz (talk) 23:04, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Sorry about attributing the footnote to you Paul. I guess it must be Joshua Jonathan. (This is the trouble with making a mass of changes without labelling them in the edit summaries.) I admit that your original quote was better. I will go back and check the discussion of it in the paper. But, yes, if there was endogamy 4,000-6,000 years ago, it is certainly interesting. It might be worth a mention, but we can't obviously integrate it with everything else we say in the article because it is an isolated study. If this is in fact true, surely there will be plenty of other studies that will explore the issue. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 06:08, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

1. Genome studies do not unveil caste, they unveil only endogamy. Caste is more than endogamy.

2. Endogamy has many reasons. Caste system is one of the many possible reasons. The most endogamous group, for last 1000 years, has been the Islamic population in West Asia, North Africa and Pakistan. More than 50% of Muslim marriages have been between bride and groom who share either one or two grandparents (cousin marriages, see reviews by Alan Bittles).

3. Recent genome studies have shown that endogamy was common in Europe too. Does that mean, encyclopedic articles should extrapolate it to be evidence for "caste in Europe"? No, methinks.

Reference 1: Dorret Boomsma (2014), European Journal of Human Genetics, Nature Publishing Group, The Genome of the Netherlands: design, and project goals,

Regional isolation and religious endogamy, as well as rapid population growth had key roles in shaping the population genetics of the Dutch.

Reference 2: Colm O'Dushlaine (2010), European Journal of Human Genetics, Genes predict village of origin in rural Europe,

Such close endogamy was probably the norm in rural Europe due to lack of transport or economic circumstances.

4. If endogamy in European history/society can have transport or economic reasons, why shouldn't it be a possible cause in Indian history/society too?

5. If this article was Endogamy in India, it might be more appropriate to include results from genome studies. Even then, I say "might", because one must be careful to avoid interpreting or quoting primary sources. Genome studies need the same caution and guidelines as that between medical reliable sources versus non-medical reliable sources.

Paulmuniz (talk) 18:56, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

I am not sure that I agree. From the Indian point of view, endogamy is key to jati. Once you have endogamy, the rest of it follows: hierarchy, purity-pollution etc. We should also remember that jati means species or breed in Classical Sanskrit. ("Birth group" is just the etymology. See meanings.) The idea that hereditary occupational groups make up different jatis would have taken at least 4-5 generations to take root in the post-Maurya period. But it is possible that there were other kinds of jatis prior to that time. If so, it would also seem that the Aryan culture did not recognize these jatis because unions across jatis (e.g., with yakshas and rakshasas) abound in the Puranic literature. So, all results concerning endogamy in India are relevant to this article. But we should make only brief mentions, and refrain from drawing conclusions. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 06:28, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

The genetics stuff should be tossed.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 06:56, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Kautilya3, "endogamy may be key to jati", to some Indian scholars. But, is it to most scholars outside? Any reviews you can point to? Endogamy is key to a lot of things, including poverty, geographical constraints, constraints when people are persecuted for centuries or during wars, and many other reasons. If you fit your data to a stereotype or pet theory, it may make the pet theory look better, but it may not enlighten. To reach the truth, not only do we need to prove the positive, we need to disprove the negative and disprove the competing contradictory explanations. Paulmuniz (talk) 01:02, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

I have referred occasionally to the Moorjani et al. (2013) article. (See WP:Genetic_research_on_the_origins_of_India's_population for links and more details.) In my opinion, it is the definitive study of the origins of the Indian populations. The stunning results of the paper are made possible by the fact that there are two clearly distinguishable genetic haplogroups in India, which have been dubbed "Ancestral South Indian" (ASI) and "Ancestral North Indian" (ANI). The ASI genes are only found in India, whereas the ANI genes are shared by West Eurasians. Thus we might think of ASI as "Dravidian" and ANI as "Indo-Aryan." By measuring the level of admixture of ANI and ASI genes in the present day population, the researchers are able to measure when these two groups of populations "admixed" and when they stopped doing so. This kind of analysis seems to be possible only for India, because of its distinctive population mixture. Here are some quotes from the paper:

• These results show that India experienced a demographic transformation several thousand years ago, from a region in which major population mixture was common to one in which mixture even between closely related groups became rare because of a shift to endogamy.
• Our analysis documents major mixture between populations in India that occurred 1,900–4,200 years BP, well after the establishment of agriculture in the subcontinent.
• These results are striking in light of the endogamy that has characterized many groups in India since the time of mixture. For example, genetic analysis suggests that the Vysya from Andhra Pradesh have experienced negligible gene flow from neighboring groups in India for an estimated 3,000 years. Thus, India experienced a demographic transformation during this time, shifting from a region where major mixture between groups was common and affected even isolated tribes such as the Palliyar and Bhil to a region in which mixture was rare.
• Our estimated dates of mixture correlate to geography and language, with northern groups that speak Indo- European languages having significantly younger admixture dates than southern groups that speak Dravidian languages.
• The dates we report have significant implications for Indian history in the sense that they document a period of demographic and cultural change in which mixture between highly differentiated populations became pervasive before it eventually became uncommon
• The shift from widespread mixture to strict endogamy that we document is mirrored in ancient Indian texts. The Rig Veda, the oldest text in India, has sections that are believed to have been composed at different times. The older parts do not mention the caste system at all, and in fact suggest that there was substantial social movement across groups as reflected in the acceptance of people with non-Indo-European names as kings (or chieftains) and poets.... The caste (jati) system of endogamous groups having specific social or occupational roles is not mentioned in the Rig Veda at all and is referred to only in texts composed centuries after the Rig Veda, for example, the law code of Manu that forbade intermarriage between castes. Thus, the evolution of Indian texts during this period provides confirmatory support as well as context for our genetic findings.
• a recent study that searched for West Eurasian groups most closely related to the ANI ancestors of Indians failed to find any evidence for shared ancestry between the ANI and groups in West Eurasia within the past 12,500 years3 (although it is possible that with further sampling and new methods such relatedness might be detected).

Except for the last bullet (which disappointingly allows the Indigenous Aryanists to claim that the Indo-Aryans have been in India for 12,500 years, but apparently without mixing), all the other results are explosive. They say basically that the Indo-Aryans and Dravidians freely intermixed starting about 2,200 BC until about 100 AD, and then everybody became endogamous and the admixture got frozen. Among the groups studied, the Vysyas of Andhra Pradesh were the earliest ones to freeze, in about 1000 BC according to the paper (with the average admixture date in 2,000 BC). The Madigas of Andhra Pradesh a little later (average admixture date 1,400 BC), the Malas of Andhra Pradesh (average admixture date 700 BC), the Bhil tribals of Gujarat (average admixture date 200 BC), the Brahmins of Uttar Pradesh (average admixture date 100 AD) etc. See Table 1 in the paper for the results. So, endogamy set in pretty early for some groups. Presumably they chose not to intermarry. It set in a bit later for others, presumably because the others didn't want to intermarry with them. The Brahmins of UP intermarried till very late. So this research proves rather conclusively that caste endogamy goes back a long time, the hitherto missing piece of evidence for the historians. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:15, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but how many times in emerging science does it turn out that "explosive" conclusions were wrong? This is our problem. The source is prima facie WP:RS but it might well also be WP:FRINGE. It is an incredibly bold claim to make and I'd like to see evidence of people who have reviewed/critiqued it: the more extraordinary the claim, the better it needs to be sourced. The problem is, I'd probably not fully understand them either. Perhaps we also need input from Wikipedians who have specialist knowledge of the science. - Sitush (talk) 12:29, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

It is clearly not FRINGE. The Indian scholars have always maintained that the jatis date from the post-Maurya period and they never doubted that the castes were endogamous either. These results support their views. The WP page that I cited above has links to discussions in press and blogs. Actually, it turns out that some bloggers calculated similar results for themselves before the paper was published. I will ask for some expert input on the Archaeogenetics page. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 14:59, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

This is pure original research and synthesis.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 15:23, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Kautilya3, this is primary original research. The conclusions of this genome paper are interesting, but not widely accepted. Sitush is therefore right. It is reliable enough to be read and reflected upon, but also fringe because its conclusions are not widely accepted by mainstream scholars. If one conclusion bothers you (12,500 year timeline), why not the rest? I post a summary from Nicole Boivin below for your thoughtful consideration and meditation. Paulmuniz (talk) 01:02, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Reference: Anthropological, historical, archaeological, and genetic perspectives on the origins of caste in South Asia, by Nicole Boivin (2010), (Book: The Evolution and History of Human Populations in South Asia, Editors: Michael Petraglia and Bridget Allchin), Springer, pp. 341-361

1. Resolving the question of caste origins, on current evidence, is a long way from being possible, and is very unlikely to lead to simple answers. (p. 341)

2. Boivin describes two schools. Colonial/Dumont structuralist-religious theory based on ancient texts versus post-colonial/Inden/Fuller/Dirks/Leach economic-political theory based on empirical evidence such as historical evidence, reports, documents, inscriptions. Most modern scholarship accepts conclusions of the empirical evidence school. (p. 344-347)

3. From recent scholarship in archaeology as well, the idea that caste can be traced back into the deep past lacks support from most scholars. (p. 350)

4. Genetics. Initial reports exciting, some linked caste system origin to Indo-Aryan invasion theory (p. 350), but recent genome studies contradict these findings (p. 351).

5. Kivisild and colleagues (Cambridge University) have published genome papers that suggest little gene inflow into South Asia since the beginning of Holocene (~ 10,000 BCE). Link of caste to Indo-Aryans may be doubtful assuming underlying data is okay. (pp. 351-352)

6. Underlying data is suspect. Numerous problems with genome samples for caste studies: caste bearing the same name may have very different origins; people in the sample set can misrepresent their caste; people in the sample set do not know their caste or the caste of their ancestors; some castes and last names are of recent origins; shared caste names are being mistaken for shared caste histories; data is not reproducible and different studies on the same underlying population set is giving contradictory results. (pp. 352-355)

7. Overall summary: Caste then, it is clear, is a complicated matter. (p. 355)

8. Genome studies-related summary: Boivin writes, "the findings of the genome studies need to be treated with substantial caution, if not outright skepticism based on problems concerning both the genetic patterns and their interpretation." (p. 351)

Paulmuniz (talk) 01:02, 2 July 2015 (UTC)