Posted: 25 Feb 2016 10:56 AM PST
The first complete sequences of the Y chromosomes of aboriginal Australian men have revealed a deep indigenous genetic history tracing all the way back to the initial settlement of the continent 50,000 years ago, according to a new study.
Very interesting study and article JadeBlackOlive It mentions and debunks an earlier hypothesis that said that the Aboriginals came from India, But it doesn't mention what original route they took to Australia.
Through Genetics they can trace the ancestry of all humans but sometimes its hard to keep track of the intermediate routes
But DNA has also shown that one group CAN be traced back to India: the Roma (aka Gypsies).
Dr. Alice Roberts did a great documentary called "The Incredible Human Journey" and the "Australia" episode was good. I have it downloaded somewhere and can dropbox to you if the link does not work. I think it may be on Youtube too.
That's a marvellous series.
The Polynesians have been tracked back to (of all places) Taiwan, linguistically. Taiwan is currently dominated by Chinese but there are other ethnic groups there, who preceded the Chinese. The indigneous languages are undeniably related to each other and to the Polynesian tongues, but have diverted a lot (the variety is greater than in the whole of the Pacific Islands) an indication that that language family started there.
Its really fascinating how the Denisovians, Neanderthals and Sapians etc, all migrated out of Africa, but other than backwash back down to northern Africa, later, no modern Africans seem to have Denisovian or Neanderthal DNA.....but Europeans and Asians, etc, all seem to have assorted percentages of the extinct lineages.
The Australian Aborigines were directly out of Africa before the splits, etc.
We are looking at what we looked like ~ 100k years ago or more.
You all know how loath I am to introduce tangents into discussions (ahem), but I've been wondering about the term "aboriginal."
On the one hand, I know that etymologically "aboriginal" means something like "from the beginning," and yet I think in the popular mind it has pejorative connotations as if you were calling them "cave people" or "neanderthals".
Why don't aussies call them "Native Australians" rather then "aboriginals."
American Indians were only called that due to a geography error. :D
In NJ, I was at a Native American gathering/festival, and one of the speakers jokingly referred to how in the US, there are two basic "Indians":
7-11 Indians and Casino Indians.
Everyone knows who is who w/o confusion.
For non-US readers, the aboriginal/native american indians have casinos, and the Eurasian american indians have 7-11's.
Well, at least here in Portland, I think the Koreans have an edge when it comes to convenience stores. Also, when it comes to taxis, N. Africans and Russians seem to have the edge.
I'll take "first nation" over "native american" because...well, I was born here, yet have purely "old world" ancestry. "Native American" conflates a group's origins with an individual's, and hence to some extent groups with individuals. "First Nation" to me can only refer to the group.
Unfortunately, the "first nationers" took over the Continent(s) (S. America as well) before there was a formal way to claim land. They fought over land and access to resources among themselves, so when the Europeans arrived, it may have seemed strange to them, but it was nothing new.
True. Its not as though the Lenape, etc, were the first there either, there were more ancient groups that THEY replaced, and so forth.
So, the Europeans were the last nation more than the americans that greeted them, when "discovered", were the first nation.