….contributed to aboriginal genes, a study claims, and were possibly responsible for the introduction of dingos and microlith stone technology:

A STUDY of Aboriginal genes has credited Indians for the introduction of dingos, food processing and tool technology to Australia more than 4000 years ago.
The study, published in US journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, found genetic links between Aborigines from the Northern Territory and Indians that pre-dated European arrival in Australia – going back between 4000 and 5000 years.

Previously it was believed that there had been no contact between Australia and the rest of the world after the initial southern migration from Africa.

The study’s authors believe that the evidence indicates that Indians had migrated to Australia, but they could not determine the route used.

Professor Mark Stoneking told bbc.co.uk that it had been believed that Australia had been isolated following its initial colonisation, but this study showed another significant migration.

“Our results show that there were indeed people that made a genetic contribution to Australians from India,” he said.

The report also suggests that Indians brought stone tools, called microliths, to Australia, and tracks the dingo’s arrival in Australia to roughly the same time.

The study also examined genetic links with South-East Asia and Papua New Guinea.

It also used fossils and other archaeological discoveries.

The report’s authors said more research was needed to look at a wider sample of Aboriginal genes.

Read more: http://www.news.com.au/news/study-finds-ancient-genetic-link-between-india-and-australia/story-fnejlrpu-1226554388993#ixzz2I1P868Tw

The report’s authors said more research was needed to look at a wider sample of Aboriginal genes.

—-

Given that the migratory path from Africa to Australia passed through India it would not be surprissing to see a wider sample of Aboriginal genes to generate the same results.

tauto said:

Given that the migratory path from Africa to Australia passed through India it would not be surprissing to see a wider sample of Aboriginal genes to generate the same results.

I think it is the date of the migration that is significant.

Witty Rejoinder said:

tauto said:

Given that the migratory path from Africa to Australia passed through India it would not be surprissing to see a wider sample of Aboriginal genes to generate the same results.

I think it is the date of the migration that is significant.

—-

I can’t see from the report how they found out the genes were from 5000 years ago instead of from 50,000 years ago.

Only artifacts from 5000 years ago.

tauto said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

tauto said:

Given that the migratory path from Africa to Australia passed through India it would not be surprissing to see a wider sample of Aboriginal genes to generate the same results.

I think it is the date of the migration that is significant.

—-

I can’t see from the report how they found out the genes were from 5000 years ago instead of from 50,000 years ago.

Only artifacts from 5000 years ago.

I thought they could come up with an estimated date by looking at lots of different genetic markers. They have built up a sort of map and timeline for lots of different populations.

party_pants said:

tauto said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

I think it is the date of the migration that is significant.

—-

I can’t see from the report how they found out the genes were from 5000 years ago instead of from 50,000 years ago.

Only artifacts from 5000 years ago.

I thought they could come up with an estimated date by looking at lots of different genetic markers. They have built up a sort of map and timeline for lots of different populations.

—-

Spencer Wells with National Geographic has been working on it for the Genographic project for 7 years.

I am still unaware of any new findings from them…

Abstract of the actual paper:

Genome-wide data substantiate Holocene gene flow from India to Australia

Irina Pugacha,1, Frederick Delfina,b, Ellen Gunnarsdóttira,c, Manfred Kayserd, and Mark Stonekinga Author Affiliations

aDepartment of Evolutionary Genetics, Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, D-04103 Leipzig, Germany; bDNA Analysis Laboratory, Natural Sciences Research Institute, University of the Philippines Diliman, Quezon City 1101, Philippines; cdeCODE Genetics, 101 Reykjavik, Iceland; and dDepartment of Forensic Molecular Biology, Erasmus MC University Medical Center Rotterdam, 3000 CA, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
Edited by James O’Connell, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, and approved November 27, 2012 (received for review July 21, 2012)

Abstract
The Australian continent holds some of the earliest archaeological evidence for the expansion of modern humans out of Africa, with initial occupation at least 40,000 y ago. It is commonly assumed that Australia remained largely isolated following initial colonization, but the genetic history of Australians has not been explored in detail to address this issue. Here, we analyze large-scale genotyping data from aboriginal Australians, New Guineans, island Southeast Asians and Indians. We find an ancient association between Australia, New Guinea, and the Mamanwa (a Negrito group from the Philippines), with divergence times for these groups estimated at 36,000 y ago, and supporting the view that these populations represent the descendants of an early “southern route” migration out of Africa, whereas other populations in the region arrived later by a separate dispersal. We also detect a signal indicative of substantial gene flow between the Indian populations and Australia well before European contact, contrary to the prevailing view that there was no contact between Australia and the rest of the world. We estimate this gene flow to have occurred during the Holocene, 4,230 y ago. This is also approximately when changes in tool technology, food processing, and the dingo appear in the Australian archaeological record, suggesting that these may be related to the migration from India.

>The report’s authors said more research was needed to look at a wider sample of Aboriginal genes.

I have picked up the impression that the people are not interested in such things and are reluctant to supply genetic material. But perhaps that was just based on a few comments I saw on tele once.

morrie said:

>The report’s authors said more research was needed to look at a wider sample of Aboriginal genes.

I have picked up the impression that the people are not interested in such things and are reluctant to supply genetic material. But perhaps that was just based on a few comments I saw on tele once.

There’s a lot of modern-day politics wrapped up in it. Anything that presents a different view to the idea of 40,000 years of uninterrupted occupation can be twisted around to undermine the legitimacy of current claims over land.

I think it is more like 70,000 years and that the path of arrival was always via the coast Asia of and including India. The aborigine was here a long time before India was settled and that 5,000 years merely was a later infusion migration after the last ice age?