Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Aboriginal Australian genomes reveal Indian ancestry (2013)

nature.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 231 posts

Re: Aboriginal Australian genomes reveal Indian ancestry (2013)

#71

Post by shard972 »

ImaCake wrote: post #56
nhchris wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> As we gather more data our understanding of human migration inevitably clashes with identity politics/nationalism and previous simplistic pre-scientific classifications based on skin color and facial features Does it? Because most studies find that people living in the same country are indeed more closely related to each other than to people of different countries, roughly according to what you would expect from ge…

Yes, ppl in the same country have more similar genomes. But modern population genetics has found that 1. There is more similarity than difference between any 2 humans on earth (there are africans and europeans who share more dna than with others of their own ancestry. And, 2. People move around, a lot! We knew this already but there are a huge number of undocumented migrations that are being revealed by these studies…

[dead]

Re: Aboriginal Australian genomes reveal Indian ancestry (2013)

#72

Post by runsWphotons »

undersuit wrote: post #29
actionfromafar wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Dravidian is not indo-european AFAIK.

But no one said Dravidian. Thank you for clearing that up. Same question: Are you saying they are based off of a Dravidian language?

I was saying this based on what Ive read previously. It seems the theory is more disputed than I remember but it is consistent with this genetic introgression and other things happening at the time. Whatever the case a lot of things changed circa 5000 years ago.

Re: Aboriginal Australian genomes reveal Indian ancestry (2013)

#73

Post by permo-w »

codebje wrote: post #54
stolen_biscuit wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 80% of Australian languages are from Indian-derived language families and developed from around the time of the Dingo introduction (only 4000 years ago) Source? Australia has been continuously populated by Aboriginal people for 60,000+ years, with over 260 languages I find that claim incredibly hard to believe.

It only took 200 years for 200 of those 260 languages to be lost or brought to the edge of extinction. It's at least plausible and to me quite believable that the arrival of a group with a technological advantage 4,000 years ago could have had a substantial impact on the existing languages. The same set of languages definitely will not have survived for 60,000 years. Tribes come and go, merge and split. Outside influ…

sure it’s plausible, but is there any linguistic evidence of it being the case? otherwise there’s very little point in discussing it

Re: Aboriginal Australian genomes reveal Indian ancestry (2013)

#74

Post by viewtransform »

dankwizard wrote: post #62
viewtransform wrote: post #30

More than a decade ago I submitted my DNA to the National Genographic Project [1] which was an attempt to trace ancient human migration using Y chromosome and mitochondrial DNA from a sampling of people around the world. My paternal Y-chromosome line showed an ancient mutation (>50K year ago) carried by humans who had likely spread through a coastal migration from Africa around coasts of the Arabian Sea down to South…

The only thing more boring than hearing about peoples' dreams is hearing about their ancestral history.

Agreed, ancestry is boring. I focused on ancient human migration which I find interesting.

Re: Aboriginal Australian genomes reveal Indian ancestry (2013)

#75

Post by ChickenNugger »

a_bonobo wrote: post #65
coderenegade wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's the wood. You can rank woods by the amount of strain energy per unit of mass that they can take before breaking. The higher this figure, the better the bow, because it'll store more energy for a lower mass in the limbs before it breaks, and the differences can be fairly significant. The best bow woods are all at the top of this list, along with a few that should be good in theory but aren't used likely for other…

Most Australian wood is also ultra-hard, you can't have a bendy bow from there. People used to build streets from blocks of Jarrah wood [1]. A much more popular Australian weapon was the combination of spear thrower and spear; that'll take your head off clean. https://fremantlestuff.info/streets/blocks.html#:~:text=Aust... .

I have a Jarrah cane! I'm completely confident it would stop a steel sword. Probably mess up the edge in the process. It's heavy too.

Re: Aboriginal Australian genomes reveal Indian ancestry (2013)

#76

Post by pantry-man »

ChickenNugger wrote: post #44

The only interesting thing I know about Aborigines is they're the only known people who didn't invent the bow and arrow. As a hobbyist archer this is fascinating to me. They apparently didn't need it, as they're still around.

They're also the only culture to invent the boomerang which is a weapon that comes back to the thrower. Pretty cool if you ask me

Re: Aboriginal Australian genomes reveal Indian ancestry (2013)

#77

Post by runsWphotons »

pigscantfly wrote: post #18
ace2358 wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Especially only 4,000 years ago. I’m under the impression that the culture is much much older than that. Why would it change so quickly? Especially for a people’s that are quite traditional. At least as I understand it. I also understand that the native languages are mostly spoken and not written, are these Indian languages written?

Linguistic displacement can occur without genetic displacement. This has happened many times in history -- usually when a society's elite are displaced by a linguistically distinct foreign elite and their language is gradually adopted down the ranks of society as people seek advancement. Many branches of Proto-Indo-European (eg. Anatolian) are thought to have spread in this manner ie. with elite but not whole-populat…

This is true but is also something there would be reason to doubt in Australian context. It seems more likely that peoples in northern australia had some contact with outsiders around the time discussed in article, got some technological advances and small degree of genetic mixing from absorbing the outsiders, and then spread out, probably helped by some new techniques. But this is just one conjecture.

Re: Aboriginal Australian genomes reveal Indian ancestry (2013)

#78

Post by Jedd »

Zurrrrr wrote: post #41
Jedd wrote: post #33

It's an emotionally charged subject, which is unfortunate as it's objectively fascinating from a purely historical perspective. The simplified and (generally) commonly accepted narrative is that a cohesive group arrived here 45-60,000YA, lived peacefully and in harmony with the land right up until Europeans arrived. There's some debate about the megafauna extinctions, but no conclusive evidence either way. (I did app…

Did you have to look up the name of the author of Sapiens or you have it committed to memory?

I enjoyed the book, though I used the audio version which I suspect skews my opinion upwards. Thoroughly enjoyed it, but I understand some HNers have cause to argue with some of his conclusions.

Anyway, I looked up the author's name as I didn't trust my memory.

Does this affect your interest in the book?

Re: Aboriginal Australian genomes reveal Indian ancestry (2013)

#79

Post by runsWphotons »

viewtransform wrote: post #39
runsWphotons wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That there is some Indian introgression into Aborigibal genomes is completely not surprising based on phenotypic characteristics of their faces as well as other aspects of their cultures like language. It was remarked upon by "previous simplistic pre-scientific" British settlers, who it turns out were quite right. Many other older theories have turned out to get support from the genetic evidence.

India was just a waypoint on the journey of human genes from Africa to Australia.

The study above argues convincingly for later contact though. There were probably several waves, theres other (disputed) circumstantial evidence for this. When we sequence more (if allowed) we will find richer picture as the OP alludes to.

Re: Aboriginal Australian genomes reveal Indian ancestry (2013)

#80

Post by AlotOfReading »

verytrivial wrote: post #22
ace2358 wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Especially only 4,000 years ago. I’m under the impression that the culture is much much older than that. Why would it change so quickly? Especially for a people’s that are quite traditional. At least as I understand it. I also understand that the native languages are mostly spoken and not written, are these Indian languages written?

There is compelling but rare evidence of habitation back as far at 60,000 years. But there is zero reason to assume the continent was sealed to migration at any point. In fact it was disconnected and reconnected by land bridges more than once over that period. Culture is a process not an artifact. Regarding the speed of change, tally the vocab contribution of Norman French, Anglo Saxon, Roman and Brittonic languages…

Australasia has not been joined to the rest of the world by land bridges for tens of millions of years. That's why so much of the fauna is strange and unusual. Humans are one of the few mammalian species that have managed to cross the deep water barriers on our own.
Post reply on HN