4 ms·

The Austronesians that spread out of Taiwan did also circle back westwards, reaching as far as Madagascar. The Sentinelese, however, are unlikely to be related

The Austronesians that spread out of Taiwan did also circle back westwards, reaching as far as Madagascar. The Sentinelese, however, are unlikely to be related to the Austronesian expansion. We have no genetic samples from the Sentinelese so we can't be sure, but are most likely closely related to the other Andamanese groups, like the Onge. The Andamanese are the remnants of a much older expansion, perhaps 50K years prior, compared to the 5K of the Austronesians. The Andamanese are distant relations of the AASI ancestors of modern South Asians, and more distantly of the Australian Aborigines. Contrast with the Nicobarese, who are an austroasiatic people, related to the Munda and Khasi of the mainland. The austroasiatic family is potentially a distant relation of the Austronesian family, so there that.

Abishek_Muthian 5y ago
I appreciate your detailed comment based on current studies. It seems that the Andamanese being remanants of Negritos has been debunked using DNA evidence and so it's unlikely that the Sentinelese were part of Austronesians. > The Andamanese are the remnants of a much older expansion, perhaps 50K years prior If they crossed using land bridge from NE Indian Subcontinent during Last Glacial Maximum (LGM) then it's likely 26,500 years and 19–20,000 years ago(According to Wiki). > The Andamanese are distant relations of the AASI ancestors of modern South Asians, and more distantly of the Australian Aborigines. On a related note: Newer linguistic studies claims to have found proto-Dravidian languages in Indus Valley Civilization[1], If so then ASI migrations waves seems to have been happening quite regularly for thousands of years. [1] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-021-00868-w https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-021-00868-w
- valarauko 5y ago
  > If they crossed using land bridge from NE Indian Subcontinent during Last Glacial Maximum (LGM) then it's likely 26,500 years and 19–20,000 years ago(According to Wiki) The 50K date I quoted is based on genetic studies - the Andamanese separated from the AASI (and the Aborigines) about 50K years ago. That's in line with the arrival of the Aborigines in Australia, so its possible the Andamanese are a remnant of the same expansion. I suspect the Andamanese arrived to the islands very early on, rather than a LGM arrival date, since unlike the high levels seen in Aborigines, the Andamanese have no Denisovan ancestry at all. Considering the high levels of Denisovan ancestry that radiates outwards from the former Sundaland, I'm not sure the proto-Andamanese could have hung out in Burma for 20K before crossing the LCM landbridge without picking up some Denisovan DNA. Of course, this is simply conjecture at this point. > * Newer linguistic studies claims to have found proto-Dravidian languages in Indus Valley Civilization* For what its worth, I found the paper unconvincing. I've read prior works (notably Krishnamurthy, cited in the paper), and unlike those papers, the argument here is based on a single root word. Besides, even if the root word originated in the IVC (quite possible), it doesn't rule out that it was a loan word into proto-Dravidian as well from a non-Dravidian IVC - just like in Akkadian. I am less familiar with proto-Dravidian and more with proto-Indo-European (PIE), and at least with PIE there's been considerable scholarship suggesting significant loan words into it from proto-Altic & proto-Caucasian. PIE when it formed was already a messy mishmash, with Hittite & Tocarian probably splitting off even before PIE formed. With the proto-Dravidian scholarship, I sense the desire to treat it as a monolith. Proto-Dravidian likely had just as much loan into it as out. IVC words could have survived as loan words into proto-Dravidian, without the IVC itself being proto-Dravidian.

Abishek_Muthian 5y ago

I appreciate your detailed comment based on current studies. It seems that the Andamanese being remanants of Negritos has been debunked using DNA evidence and so it's unlikely that the Sentinelese were part of Austronesians. > The Andamanese are the remnants of a much older expansion, perhaps 50K years prior If they crossed using land bridge from NE Indian Subcontinent during Last Glacial Maximum (LGM) then it's likely 26,500 years and 19–20,000 years ago(According to Wiki). > The Andamanese are distant relations of the AASI ancestors of modern South Asians, and more distantly of the Australian Aborigines. On a related note: Newer linguistic studies claims to have found proto-Dravidian languages in Indus Valley Civilization[1], If so then ASI migrations waves seems to have been happening quite regularly for thousands of years. [1] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-021-00868-w https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-021-00868-w

valarauko 5y ago
> If they crossed using land bridge from NE Indian Subcontinent during Last Glacial Maximum (LGM) then it's likely 26,500 years and 19–20,000 years ago(According to Wiki) The 50K date I quoted is based on genetic studies - the Andamanese separated from the AASI (and the Aborigines) about 50K years ago. That's in line with the arrival of the Aborigines in Australia, so its possible the Andamanese are a remnant of the same expansion. I suspect the Andamanese arrived to the islands very early on, rather than a LGM arrival date, since unlike the high levels seen in Aborigines, the Andamanese have no Denisovan ancestry at all. Considering the high levels of Denisovan ancestry that radiates outwards from the former Sundaland, I'm not sure the proto-Andamanese could have hung out in Burma for 20K before crossing the LCM landbridge without picking up some Denisovan DNA. Of course, this is simply conjecture at this point. > * Newer linguistic studies claims to have found proto-Dravidian languages in Indus Valley Civilization* For what its worth, I found the paper unconvincing. I've read prior works (notably Krishnamurthy, cited in the paper), and unlike those papers, the argument here is based on a single root word. Besides, even if the root word originated in the IVC (quite possible), it doesn't rule out that it was a loan word into proto-Dravidian as well from a non-Dravidian IVC - just like in Akkadian. I am less familiar with proto-Dravidian and more with proto-Indo-European (PIE), and at least with PIE there's been considerable scholarship suggesting significant loan words into it from proto-Altic & proto-Caucasian. PIE when it formed was already a messy mishmash, with Hittite & Tocarian probably splitting off even before PIE formed. With the proto-Dravidian scholarship, I sense the desire to treat it as a monolith. Proto-Dravidian likely had just as much loan into it as out. IVC words could have survived as loan words into proto-Dravidian, without the IVC itself being proto-Dravidian.