Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Add Reply
Australian Aborigines are of South Asian Indian origin
Topic Started: Dec 8 2009, 11:39 AM (1,975 Views)
Racial Awareness
Member Avatar
Banned
 *  *  *  *
Indo-Dravidians were once fully Australoid before intermarriage with northern Indians:

Quote:
 
New genetic research in BMC Evolutionary Biology found telltale mutations in modern-day Indian populations that are exclusively shared by Aborigines. The new study indicates that Australian Aborigines initially arrived via south Asia.

Dr Raghavendra Rao worked with a team of researchers from the Anthropological Survey of India to sequence 966 complete mitochondrial DNA genomes from Indian 'relic populations'. He said, "Mitochondrial DNA is inherited only from the mother and so allows us to accurately trace ancestry. We found certain mutations in the DNA sequences of the Indian tribes we sampled that are specific to Australian Aborigines. This shared ancestry suggests that the Aborigine population migrated to Australia via the so-called 'Southern Route'."

The 'Southern Route' dispersal of modern humans suggests movement of a group of hunter-gatherers from the Horn of Africa, across the mouth of the Red Sea into Arabia and southern Asia at least 50 thousand years ago. Subsequently, the modern human populations expanded rapidly along the coastlines of southern Asia, southeastern Asia and Indonesia to arrive in Australia at least 45 thousand years ago. The genetic evidence of this dispersal from the work of Rao and his colleagues is supported by archeological evidence of human occupation in the Lake Mungo area of Australia dated to approximately the same time period.

Discussing the implications of the research, Rao said, "Human evolution is usually understood in terms of millions of years. This direct DNA evidence indicates that the emergence of 'anatomically modern' humans in Africa and the spread of these humans to other parts of the world happened only fifty thousand or so years ago. In this respect, populations in the Indian subcontinent harbor DNA footprints of the earliest expansion out of Africa. Understanding human evolution helps us to understand the biological and cultural expressions of these people, with far reaching implications for human welfare."

Link: http://www.scientificblogging.com/news_articles/australian_aborigines_were_once_indians_study
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Toiletman
fat megalomanic nerd
 *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *
Yeah?
Thought it was common concensus that australid people were the oldest non-african race and that they spread along the south asian coastlines over southeast asia to the islands of the Indian and southwestern Pacific ocean finally arriving in Australia. I mean, we find australid people either pure or mixed with other races in India, Southeast Asia and on many islands like Adaman or New Guinea.

Was there any other theory about their origin?
If you take anything in this forum overly serious, you should really go and see a doctor.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
rocket7777
Junior Member
 *  *
It is more like this.....

Negrito went to south india 60kyp and spread throughout S SE asia as well as all way to japan as well as australia.
30kyp austronesian in munda india

And various other times with whatever else mutation, went to australia over and over.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
jalu
Member Avatar
Advanced Member
 *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *
The theory of Australoid migration seems to make sense. The problem area is Negrito. How did they come about? Why do they look different from Australoid?
---------------------------------------------------------------
"An unexamined life is not worth living" - by Socrates
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
rocket7777
Junior Member
 *  *
jalu
May 4 2013, 01:19 AM
The theory of Australoid migration seems to make sense. The problem area is Negrito. How did they come about? Why do they look different from Australoid?
Negrito as name implies are very similar to african negroid pygmy came to south india 60,000 years ago and spread S SE asia etc.
After 30,000 years of mutation (middle east, or india etc) some became Australoid in munda and spread.

Since negrito was small and only had very primitive technology, it was out run over time(pushed out or mix) except in some isolated spots.

australia count as isolated spot, but eventually Australoid and other indian origin group got there also and mixed.

I would say negrito looked like pure pygmy black
australoid looked Bangladesh maybe slightly darker and slightly curlier hair

If you see curlier hair and dark skin person in south india(or asia) today, chances are they are negrito mix
Edited by rocket7777, May 4 2013, 01:48 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
jalu
Member Avatar
Advanced Member
 *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *
rocket7777
May 4 2013, 01:36 AM
jalu
May 4 2013, 01:19 AM
The theory of Australoid migration seems to make sense. The problem area is Negrito. How did they come about? Why do they look different from Australoid?
Negrito as name implies are very similar to african negroid pygmy came to south india 60,000 years ago and spread S SE asia etc.
After 30,000 years of mutation (middle east, or india etc) some became Australoid in munda and spread.

Since negrito was small and only had very primitive technology, it was out run over time except in some isolated spots.
How did Negrito came to south India without going through north India, if one assume they migrated out of africa?

Are you saying the people who came from Africa looked like Negrito, and then they evolved into australoid in south asia?
---------------------------------------------------------------
"An unexamined life is not worth living" - by Socrates
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
rocket7777
Junior Member
 *  *
Posted Image
jalu
May 4 2013, 01:41 AM
rocket7777
May 4 2013, 01:36 AM
jalu
May 4 2013, 01:19 AM
The theory of Australoid migration seems to make sense. The problem area is Negrito. How did they come about? Why do they look different from Australoid?
Negrito as name implies are very similar to african negroid pygmy came to south india 60,000 years ago and spread S SE asia etc.
After 30,000 years of mutation (middle east, or india etc) some became Australoid in munda and spread.

Since negrito was small and only had very primitive technology, it was out run over time except in some isolated spots.
How did Negrito came to south India without going through north India, if one assume they migrated out of africa?

Are you saying the people who came from Africa looked like Negrito, and then they evolved into australoid in south asia?
Some time, sea was 100m+ low than it is. And place like saudi might even had greenery.

Anyway, some settled along the way but south india was probably major settlement.
But over the 30,000 years smaller settlement were lost to mutated ones(in other words non-black).


"australoid in south asia"

Some believe that. I would say it occured in middle east or india.

rocket7777
May 4 2013, 01:55 AM
jalu
May 4 2013, 01:41 AM
rocket7777
May 4 2013, 01:36 AM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
How did Negrito came to south India without going through north India, if one assume they migrated out of africa?

Are you saying the people who came from Africa looked like Negrito, and then they evolved into australoid in south asia?
Some time ago, sea level was 100m+ low than it is today. Place like saudi even had greenery some of time in history though not sure about 60-70kyp.

Anyway, some african settled along the way but south india was probably major settlement.
But over the 30,000 years smaller settlement were lost to mutated ones(in other words non-black).


"australoid in south asia"

Some believe that. I would say it occurred in middle east or india.



See the map? Light orange would be like negrito. Light green would be the australoid, except what I am saying is australoid also took light orange path too.

Edited by rocket7777, May 4 2013, 02:07 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
jalu
Member Avatar
Advanced Member
 *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *
rocket7777
May 4 2013, 01:55 AM
Some time, sea was 100m+ low than it is. And place like saudi might even had greenery.

Anyway, some settled along the way but south india was probably major settlement.
But over the 30,000 years smaller settlement were lost to mutated ones(in other words non-black).

"australoid in south asia"

Some believe that. I would say it occured in middle east or india.
There is no way one could come to south India from the Yemen without going through coastal areas of Pakistan, since Arabian sea gets pretty deep just off the shore. The question is how did those who came into South asia look like? Australoids or Negrito? Let's take this a step at a time.
---------------------------------------------------------------
"An unexamined life is not worth living" - by Socrates
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
rocket7777
Junior Member
 *  *
jalu
May 4 2013, 02:36 AM
rocket7777
May 4 2013, 01:55 AM
Some time, sea was 100m+ low than it is. And place like saudi might even had greenery.

Anyway, some settled along the way but south india was probably major settlement.
But over the 30,000 years smaller settlement were lost to mutated ones(in other words non-black).

"australoid in south asia"

Some believe that. I would say it occured in middle east or india.
There is no way one could come to south India from the Yemen without going through coastal areas of Pakistan, since Arabian sea gets pretty deep just off the shore. The question is how did those who came into South asia look like? Australoids or Negrito? Let's take this a step at a time.
I told you....

Necrito 60000 years ago black pygmy got to south india...exact route don't really matter, they got there.
It could been saudi -> iraq ->iran way or saudi ->dubai -> iran OR went through egypt skiping saudi...

30000 austronesian in munda india, looks more like bangladesh or dark indian.

I think both got to australia PLUS few more waves thousands of years later from india.


Of course there could been some other known group between 60k and 30k who got to or mutated in india.
But I believe those two were the major migrants toward SE asia in early times.
Edited by rocket7777, May 4 2013, 03:05 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ilham
Live in a Poor Country
 *  *  *  *  *  *  *
^ What do you mean by Austronesian? :rolleyes:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
rocket7777
Junior Member
 *  *

Ilham
May 4 2013, 04:40 AM
^ What do you mean by Austronesian? :rolleyes:

I have been using Austronesian and Australoid interchangeably but there might be a slight difference... I will look into that


Austronesian is a group of people that speak Austronesian language family. Mostly SE asia and polynesia, such as indonesian, java, taiwan aboriginies, old japanese etc.

You can google, but info there is not up to date like mine about 30kyp Austronesian at munda india. :)
They probably looked bangladesh or dark indian.

Land that used to connect island etc to the continent when sea level was 100m+ loweri named sunda so major name correlation to munda if you ask me.

Funny fact is, language of munda is called mundari, but there's african area called mundari which are close to human origin so there's small chance that it is not coincidence.

Example of Early Austronesian probably looked like
Posted Image

negrito
Posted Image

australian aboriginies
Posted Image

I selected the images so it looks like negrito + austronesian = australian aboriginie.
Edited by rocket7777, May 4 2013, 08:28 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ilham
Live in a Poor Country
 *  *  *  *  *  *  *
^ Original Austronesian were Mongoloid not Australoid. -_-'
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Oxy
Senior Member
 *  *  *  *  *  *
I always thought Australian Aborigines reminded me of South Indians.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
rocket7777
Junior Member
 *  *
Ilham
May 4 2013, 08:39 AM
^ Original Austronesian were Mongoloid not Australoid. -_-'
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_C-M130
Posted Image
You see where it is spreading near Bangladeshi?

So it might be better to use that location.... But Austronesian LANGUAGE connection that "I" could before was 30kyp munda NE india which is very close area.

Posted Image

Combining the genetic and language, perhaps I could connect the two and made a NEW discovery that original Austronesian was khasic location beginning.... perhaps 35-45kyp
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
charito
Member Avatar
allahknowsbest
 *  *  *  *  *  *  *
^ That first map is the original Australoid expansion into the Pacific. They are the ancestors of Papuans & Negritos. That's not the Austronesian expansion, that was much later.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
rocket7777
Junior Member
 *  *
Oxy
May 4 2013, 11:19 AM
I always thought Australian Aborigines reminded me of South Indians.
I guess what basically come down to is this....

If you add black pygmy with bangladeshi, you get something like australian aborigine.

Original poster said "Indo-Dravidians were once fully Australoid before intermarriage with northern Indians:"
But I was under impression that Dravidian language came much later, beside language is important to know migration too.

So I thought two ancient waves originally.

However, I found new potential Australoid Haplogroup C-M130 50kyp before around 30-40kpy australian aborigine, so there is no need for 2 waves.

I believe simplest is most likely, so now I now believe khasic-Australoid look like australian aborigine(except no albino) and spead.





Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
FivePercenter
Full Member
 *  *  *  *
Racial Awareness, who made the first post, has the facts correct but his interpretation that Dravidians were fully Australoid before breeding with Northern Indians is wrong. It is the other way around. Dravidians were fully modern and may have been one of the very first modern races after hybridization with Neanderthals. They then moved along the coast and entered Australia where they mixed with Denisovans. Denisovans carry H. erectus genes. Denisovans interbred with H. erectus according to John Hawks but this element was very small. Homo erectus, however, may have been present in Australia before the Denisovans and Dravidians. No matter, today's Australian Aborigines are a mixture of modern humans (sapiens and Neanderthals0 plus Denisovans, plus Homo erectus.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
rocket7777
Junior Member
 *  *
FivePercenter
May 4 2013, 07:09 PM
Racial Awareness, who made the first post, has the facts correct but his interpretation that Dravidians were fully Australoid before breeding with Northern Indians is wrong. It is the other way around. Dravidians were fully modern and may have been one of the very first modern races after hybridization with Neanderthals. They then moved along the coast and entered Australia where they mixed with Denisovans. Denisovans carry H. erectus genes. Denisovans interbred with H. erectus according to John Hawks but this element was very small. Homo erectus, however, may have been present in Australia before the Denisovans and Dravidians. No matter, today's Australian Aborigines are a mixture of modern humans (sapiens and Neanderthals0 plus Denisovans, plus Homo erectus.
To me Denisovans came later.... So it is not really correct.

It would be ridiculous similar to saying usa have some white, so usa was source of brazilian white.


In order for Denisovans claim to have any basis.... You need time and some evidance language/culture/technology migration path.

Of course there were few waves, so it is very likely Denisovans was involved in later ones.
Edited by rocket7777, May 4 2013, 10:04 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
jalu
Member Avatar
Advanced Member
 *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *
rocket7777
May 4 2013, 06:30 PM
Oxy
May 4 2013, 11:19 AM
I always thought Australian Aborigines reminded me of South Indians.
I guess what basically come down to is this....

If you add black pygmy with bangladeshi, you get something like australian aborigine.

Original poster said "Indo-Dravidians were once fully Australoid before intermarriage with northern Indians:"
But I was under impression that Dravidian language came much later, beside language is important to know migration too.
An African, Bengali mix would not look Aborigine, but would look sort of Ethiopean.

Anyhow what you seem to be saying is that:

- Africans came to south asia and evolved into Aborigine.
- Aborigine then migrated to Australia.
- From Australia Aborigine migrated to New Guinea/SE Asia and evolved to Negrito

Right?
Edited by jalu, May 4 2013, 10:06 PM.
---------------------------------------------------------------
"An unexamined life is not worth living" - by Socrates
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ilham
Live in a Poor Country
 *  *  *  *  *  *  *
rocket7777
May 4 2013, 06:05 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_C-M130
Posted Image
You see where it is spreading near Bangladeshi?

So it might be better to use that location.... But Austronesian LANGUAGE connection that "I" could before was 30kyp munda NE india which is very close area.

Posted Image

Combining the genetic and language, perhaps I could connect the two and made a NEW discovery that original Austronesian was khasic location beginning.... perhaps 35-45kyp
Australoid race
Austroasiatic languages
Austronesian languages, Austronesian peoples

You know the differences? And the map you have posted is map of Austro-Asiatic, not Austronesian languages.
Edited by Ilham, May 5 2013, 12:39 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
DealsFor.me - The best sales, coupons, and discounts for you
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Population Genetics · Next Topic »
Add Reply