January 27, 2013
Genetic evidence suggests that, four millennia ago, a group of adventurous Indians landed in Australia
From The Economist:
The story of the ascent of man usually casts Australia as the forgotten continent. Both archaeology and the genes of aboriginal Australians suggest that a mere 15,000 years were required for humanity to spread from its initial toehold outside Africa, on the Arabian side of the straits of Bab el Mandeb, to the land of Oz. The first Australians thus arrived about 45,000 years ago. After that, it took until 1788, when Captain Arthur Phillip, RN, turned up in Sydney Cove with a cargo of ne’er-do-wells to found the colony of New South Wales, for gene flow between Australia and the rest of the world to be resumed.
This storyline was called into question a few years ago by the discovery, in some aboriginal Australian men, of Y chromosomes that looked as though they had come from India. But the details were unclear. Now a study by Irina Pugach of the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, in Leipzig, and her colleagues, which has just been published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, has sorted the matter out. About 4,000 years before Captain Phillip and his merry men arrived to turn the aboriginals’ world upside down, it seems that a group of Indian adventurers chose to call the place home. Unlike their European successors, these earlier settlers were assimilated by the locals. And they brought with them both technological improvements and one of Australia’s most iconic animals.
More here.
Posted by S. Abbas Raza at 04:49 PM | Permalink






















Comments
I love it when 'the story' gets more complicated like this. Makes it that much harder for racists to make 'scientific' arguments.
Posted by: DrunktankDan | Jan 30, 2013 8:18:17 PM
An aboriginal friend of mine once visited South India (where there are mainly Dravidians) and was astonished at how much the locals looked like her people back home. Even the language sounded very similar to her.
Posted by: Alise | Jan 31, 2013 12:56:34 AM
they only tested people from the north of Australia, its well known Aboriginal Australians in that region traded and intermixed with other cultures/peoples, seems like the same old low quality science Auatralia in known for ( huge amounts of wrong information over the generations, even Darwin got Aboriginal people wrong), find one piece of evidence and construct a whole theory, been done to many times to mention, whats happened to science, no one seems to take a holistic view, instead tailor their methodology to target the outcome they are seeking, thats not science in my opinion, archaeology in OZ is dictated by money, no one does research for knowledge, a sponsor (person/organisation/company) must go through the tender process, the one who quotes the least is hired (usually the most unethical), if they dont get the outcome a sponsor wants they will not get hired again, same for government, I have seen projects change heritage advisors (archaeologists) multiple times durig the one project until they found someone to do what the sponsor wants, its all based on development not the pursuits of knowledge
Posted by: SS | Feb 4, 2013 10:52:10 PM
Post a comment