4 ms·
Most of the claims Im making come straight from the nature article at the top. First paragraph: "Northern Aboriginal Australians can trace as much as 11% of th
by runsWphotons 4y ago
Most of the claims Im making come straight from the nature article at the top. First paragraph:
"Northern Aboriginal Australians can trace as much as 11% of their genomes to migrants who reached the island around 4,000 years ago from India, a new study suggests. Along with their genes, the migrants <may?> also have brought more advanced tool-making techniques and the ancestors of the dingo."
The pama-nyungan proto-language has been estimated to be around 5,000 years old, roughly. There are sources for this claim in the wikipedia article, and also for the claim that 306/~400 aborginal languages are in this family. The "out of india" theory is more disputed than I thought (corrected this elsewhere), but is a proposed theory. There are several theories here, but the paper argues for basically what Ive said elsewhere: https://langev.com/pdf/442ac40068c1d8a67a561d0d7f0fcd95c429c265.pdf https://langev.com/pdf/442ac40068c1d8a67a561d0d7f0fcd95c429c...
I talked about the bradshaw paintings somewhere else, the wikipedia article on these has good sources i also have some papers somewhere. Notnsure what else you want to get started.
- biorach 4y agoThere's a _lot_ of speculation in there
- runsWphotons 4y agoTheres a lot of speculation around all of this. It is still a source to back up this theory and leads you to others about the archeology. Here is a genetic study from 2016 that disputes the one in this article: https://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822(16)00078-6?_returnURL=http%3A%2F%2Flinkinghub.elsevier.com%2Fretrieve%2Fpii%2FS0960982216000786%3Fshowall%3Dtrue https://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822(16).... No one really knows until we sequence way more people and more bones.