Genetic evidence suggests that, four millennia ago, Indians landed in Australia | Hacker News Reader

Genetic evidence suggests that, four millennia ago, Indians landed in Australia

economist.com

104 pointsbenpbenp39 comments

>> Sadly, the archaeological record has yet to reveal tandoori ovens or fossilised chapatis in Australia.

Only marginally relevant to the article but it never ceases to pain me when I see another piece of evidence that the delicious and varied south indian cuisine is not well-known outside south india.

I share your pain.

Blame it on the surfeit of "Balti houses" in UK which have managed to crowbar faux north indian cuisine as the only Indian cuisine into brit pop culture!

Try west London, particularly Hounslow. Plenty of south Indian cuisine and at very reasonable prices.

funny that tandoori roti and chapatis are from north India and evidence suggests migration from the south ... maybe the author needs a lesson in matching Indian food to region

Yeah, it's sad that the article mentions "Tandoori" and anything having to do with South India on the same page.

Well, you know, give it time. I'm just happy that we've progressed to the point that any Indian cuisine has become common in my part of the world.

In similar news, researches recently found that Madagascar was colonized by Indonesian people, not people coming from mainland Africa. Moreover, there were only about 30 female settlers (no information about male settlers as the study was done on mitochondria DNA, which is only passed from mother to child, but not from father to child).

http://www.economist.com/node/21550759

http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/279/1739/2761...

In similar news, researches recently found that Madagascar was colonized by Indonesian people, not people coming from mainland Africa.

The genetics study is a confirmation of a fact that was known for a long, long time on linguistic grounds. (All of the major languages spoken on Madagascar are Austronesian languages, cognate with the languages from farther east like those of Indonesia and Polynesia.) The travel of some food crops to Madagascar with the early seafaring settlers also suggested this.

Link to the original publication: http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2013/01/09/1211927110

(I'm sorry that it is behind a paywall.)

Irina Pugach, Frederick Delfin, Ellen Gunnarsdóttir, Manfred Kayser, and Mark Stoneking. Genome-wide data substantiate Holocene gene flow from India to Australia. PNAS 2013; published ahead of print January 14, 2013, doi:10.1073/pnas.1211927110

Near my hometown in Australia human remains have been found that are older than any existing model of human migration says they aught to be.

Nobody has come up with a good explanation of how human could have been in Australia so long ago.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Mungo_remains

If you're interested in the work being done to understand Indus script, Rajesh Rao delivered a TED talk with plenty of machine learning goodness:

http://www.ted.com/talks/rajesh_rao_computing_a_rosetta_ston...

Rao's claims are nonsense, according to computational linguist Richard Sproat (Bell Labs, University of Illinois, OHSU, now at Google):

http://www.cslu.ogi.edu/~sproatr/newindex/indus.html

...and the counterargument has been debunked too. A lot of complaints were just ad hominem attack alleging Tamil supremacy, Tamil ethnocentrism. The first note of dicord that strikes you as an Indian is that bar one, all authors of that paper were from North India. If any Tamil bias is expected from that rergion it would be a bias against Tamil.

I dont know why Rao's claim (well they arent quite claims either, not yet atleast, they are rather a call for further investigation) have been so spectacularly blown out of proportion and why people get so upset about it.

Sproat at least does not say that Rao in any form claimed that his work "proves" anything one way or the other, rather that it was the "discussion" around the paper that claims a proof. I would have been happier if that distinction was made clearer.

In anycase if you search HN you will find an interesting thread discussing this topic. Learned quite a bit from it.

Here is the previous discussion http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4061748 and some here as well

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4154755

EDIT: @kylebgorman I dont consider myself qualified enough to agree or disagree, but have to say that I was taken aback by the push back it received, particulay the vociferous allegation of Tamil supremacy.

EDIT @kylebgorman wait I didnt say that the paper or the criticism was ethnically biased, but that ethnic bias was a major criticism that was levied against Rao's paper. This comment on the thread will have some examples http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4062129 rebuttals, counter rebuttals, , counter-counter... you get the idea.

Whether or not there is a claim that Rao et al. were driven by "ethnocentrism" (I do not think this is the word you are looking for), do you dispute the facts I linked to?

The many computational linguists who have discussed these papers in public fora have expressed disgust with the scientific naïveity of the Rao et al. paper; the pushback is due to its very poor scientific merits (in contrast with its very high publication profile), not some ethnic bias as you seem to allege.

This is very interesting, I always thought of Australian natives as having been a part of an out-migration of similar populations (remnants of which still exist, e.g., Andamanese in India, small populations in Thailand, Malaysia, and Philippines, etc...) from South/South-East Asia -- with intermarriage between further migrations (Indo-European speakers, Austronesians, etc...) and these remnant populations leading to form the different ethnic groups along the route of migration.

I wonder if another possible explanation for the Dravidic SNPs is due to intermarriage with Indonesian population -- themselves probably bearing some Dravidic DNA due to India's influence on Indonesia at one time -- that traveled to Northern Australia from the late middle ages until early 20th century for fishing and trade purposes.

It seems a little bit generous to allow 30 years per generation. The current average maternal age at childbirth in Western Europe is apparently around 29.5 years old.

Wouldn't we expect that to be earlier in aboriginal cultures?

Only if you assume a generation is keyed on the "first" birth; it is matrilineal; that culturally child-birthing begins as soon as puberty kicks in (rather than being forestalled by social taboos or customs); and that puberty kicks in at roughly the same age then as now, even in an area of scarce resources.

I might think, off the bat, that 30 years is too high as well, but I also might assume they picked that number for a reason. Certainly, I'd like to know what it is as well, as that number is one of two key variables that creates the time-span value used for dating.

> that puberty kicks in at roughly the same age then as now,

The age of sexual maturity in women has been decreasing for a while. It seems to be related to a number of things including body mass. So it was probably later for these people.

I don't know anything about 30yr generations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Menarche#Changes_in_time_of_ave...

> The age of sexual maturity in women has been decreasing for a while.

That's irrelevant; we're measuring generations of y-chromosomes which are passed by the father; the age of the mother has nothing to do with it.

Maybe not directly, but if in general women are paired with men older than themselves, then the age for men might skew upwards also.

> ...it is matrilineal...

Bear in mind they are counting mutations on the y-chromosome, which is based from father to son. Over a wide range of cultures men on average mate with women who are younder than them, so the time between generations by patrilineal descent will be greater than the time by matrilineal descent.

Ahhh, that makes a lot more sense. Thanks.

For the 30 y assumption they cite:

Fenner JN (2005) Cross-cultural estimation of the human generation interval for use in genetics-based population divergence studies. Am J Phys Anthropol 128(2):415–423.

It's interesting the hypothesis that the dingoes came in the same migration. Is there any study of the genome of dogs/lingoes classified by geographical origin?

A scenario: http://westhunt.wordpress.com/2013/01/15/a-three-hour-tour/

If this is true, is there any evidence of cultural or technological contamination? Surely these seafarers brought a lot of new ideas and technology with them (such as agriculture).

Can India claim rights to Australia?

The article has various flaws in it. That includes their imaginary dating of the "Indian civilization" as well as the assumption behind the SNP mutations based age and origin correlation. The nomenclature used on the map is also wrong. There are more than a dozen mistakes in it.

There is no name of the author on the article either. I wonder if this is propaganda, pure carelessness or something else. Did the Zurich guys even approve publishing such non-sense?

Economist articles have no byline as editorial policy.

Can't comment on the rest of your points.

Max Planck Gesellschaft publication on this:

http://www.mpg.de/6818105/Holocene-gene-flow_India-Australia

> There are more than a dozen mistakes in it.

Could you please point those out?

Is this a trailer for a highbrow dismissal?

'imaginary dating of the "Indian civilization"'

The 23rd centry BC seems to be right in the middle of the peak of the Indus Valley Civilisation:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indus_Valley_Civilization

You allude to many things but don't state counterpoints. Would you please elaborate?

That's an interestingly emotional, defensive response. Most HN readers would simply have found it an cool scientific article. I don't think the Economist science section really has a "propaganda" axe to grind. (And as others have said, they never sign articles.) What's the source of your reaction?

It could just hit close to home. These anthropological 'origin stories' sometimes contradict racial identity. For example, if you were to suggest that the Japanese were descended from Korean farmers that emigrated from mainland Korean, many Japanese would find that offensive because there is deep racial hatred of Korea (though maybe only truly present in the older generations) and a racial identity of being natives to Japan.

I wonder if English have ever felt similar offense when people point out the role of France and the french language in their country's and language's development.

Nope. When I realised, I thought holy shit, I pretty much speak French already. Learn some glue words then any word ending in 'able' or 'cial' (and a few others i forget) pronounced in a 'Allo 'Allo [0] accent and you are pretty likely to be talking French. :-) [0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allo_Allo!

I think for the most part they're pretty well aware of the Latin influence on their language. But you might be interested in Googling "Anglish" for the (rather fringe) pushback against the ancient foreign incursion.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com