So we know South Asia, Japan, Southeast Asia, Near & Far Oceania, Australia and the Americas were populated with Australoid peoples but why do we never talk about their cultural imprints and impacts?
Sugarcane, Banana, Taro, breadfruit were domesticated by them. Look at how they influenced the world.
The world's oldest pottery was crafted by them.
The first humans to expand out of Africa went all the way down to South America via the Bering Strait.
So let's post about interesting subjects and images surrounding Australoids. Seems neat to me.
I remember reading somewhere that the entirety of the population of the Americas, excluding the Inuits, descended from a group of around a hundred individuals.
Anthony Young
Oh a couple of other interesting things I remember reading somewhere. There were Native Americans in possession of small amounts of Chinese pig iron from unknown sources before being in contact with Europeans. There was a Native American tribe around the great lakes region that had some European DNA from long before the 1500s.
I'm too lazy to look for sources or confirm this shit but I'd like it if someone would because I wouldn't mind reading up on this stuff again it's interesting.
Thomas Hill
Jomon =/= Australoid
Chase Smith
>To investigate the genetic relationship among two Jomons and HGDP-CEPH East Eurasians, Melanesians, and Native Americans I carried out PCA. I observed that two Jomon individuals clustered with present-day East Eurasians, but they were relatively closer to Melanesians than other East Eurasians
It seems to show that although they aren't literally part Papuan or Melanesian, they do in fact come from a divergent northerly Australoid population that assimilated Proto-East Eurasian.
Australoid nevertheless.
Also they are D2 if we take Ainu genetics into account, similar to Onge populations
There is no real evidence of that from established scientists or up to date genetic research. Maybe non-dene North American Natives but I haven't seen anything recent about that.
Landon Hall
Jomon are an extinct branch of East Eurasian.
Carter Lopez
Jomon genes are still found in Japanese populations.
Being australoid and being Papuan is not the same thing. The affinity shows common ancestry, once that ancient North Australoid is properly identified the divergence between Jomon, Ainu and Japanese can be properly quantified.
Still ancient Jomon and Southeast Asians retain non-East Eurasian genes that influence phenotypical and genetic differences placing them in the australoid-mongoloid spectrum.
Luke Ramirez
There's no such thing as ancient North Australoid.
The paper makes it clear the Jomon split from mainland proto East Eurasian populations prior to the split between East Asian and Melanesian.
Parker Gomez
>The Jomon genomic DNA clearly evidenced that Neolithic Jomon people were genetically isolated from modern East Eurasians for a long time, and they diverged from the ancestors of both northern and southern East Eurasians but postdated the divergence of East Eurasian and Melanesians. It implies that the genetic structure of modern East Eurasians was formed after the divergence of Jomon people ancestors and other East Eurasians.
This literally is stating that they formed as a group as a divergent peoples from the initial modern human population of Asia which are proto-south Australoids. Who they genetically and phenotypically resemble.
Suggest you read more studies.
Jose Gonzalez
You clearly haven't even read the source material if you are equating Jomon with Australoids(which isn't even mentioned).
Autosomal studies show that Japanese,Ryukuans and are all northern shifted.
Ryan Smith
I have read the source material, that's what was green texted.
Australoid is umbrella term that encompasses non-mongoloid Asian populations. AMH anatomically modern humans, the first to arrive in Asia are australoids.
Just as ASI ancient South Indians are categorized as australoids as well as are Aboriginals, Melanesians and Negritos.
Levi Stewart
Proto East Eurasian=/= Australoid.
At this point you're just making up conclusions that fit your narrative.
The author shows there are multiple Jomon populations and the central/northern Jomon the Yayoi displaced were of northern origin(mtdna).
The author doesn't link Jomon with Melanesians/Papuans if anything he shows they are a branch of proto East Eurasian.
Evan Morales
They aren't proto East Asian, East Asians developed long after they diverged.
>It implies that the genetic structure of modern East Eurasians was formed after the divergence of Jomon people ancestors and other East Eurasians.
Parker Peterson
>why do we never talk about their cultural imprints and impacts? Because /int/ invaded Veeky Forums so now we are nationalist pissing contests and armchair generals: the board
Mason Martinez
No,but the paper implies they were related to proto East Eurasians.
Even the PCA shows they cluster with mdoern day East Eurasians not Melanesians/Papauns.
Kevin Murphy
I posted this without reading the thread. Lo and behold: muh genetics /pol/ is aomost as bad as /int/
Angel Lopez
>I posted this without reading the thread
You're part of the problem then.
Luis Evans
Papuans and Melanesians are not proto-australoids. They are modern southern Australoids and they share a common ancestry with the proto-Jomon northern Australoids who diverged.
Once a proper northern Australoid sample is had the divergence of proto-northern Australoids and East Asians will be more apparent
Unlike that of all East Asians showing that Jomon are not proto-East Asian.
Blake Green
Where does the paper mention that the Jomon were descended from Australoids?
Their placement on the PCA show that they are far closer to modern day East Eurasians than modern day Australoisd.
Reread the paper the shared ancestry is most likely Denisovan.
Gavin Evans
They are only closer to east Asians because there is no sample that can articulate the ancestral proto-Jomon/northern Australoids.
It's like when you see Ethiopians between Yoruba or Mandika and middle eastern people in old charts, for years that was the practice giving the illusion that they are mulatto.
However after decades researchers were able to isolate the Ethio-Somali component and the Nilo-Saharan component allowing us to see the supposed mulatto placement was largely illusionary.
Zachary Edwards
What is the reasoning behind classifying Jomon as Northern Australoid rather than paleo Mongoloid?
I wonder if there is any data on Australoid/Jomon like populations that were present in southern China.
Tyler Robinson
Implying they are proto-mongoloid would mean all proto-East Asians have denisovan DNA at their rates.
Seeing as the only people's that are anywhere near their levels are modern southern Australoids it must imply they diverged at an earlier time with a significant amount of denisovan admixture (but not as much as Southern Australoids) and/or had an admixture event with proto-north East Eurasians before migrating to Japan diluting denisovan contribitions slightly.
This actually aligns with Oppenheimer's theory of the sinking Sundaland as the basis for both "australoids" and mongoloids as well as research that first explores Denisovan admixture in australoids populations (not all of whom have it)
It also explains why some Negritos are genetically distinct from one another even though they look similar and some are more distinct from Papuans and Aboriginals who are distinct from one another themselves but share common ancestry and denisovan admixture rates
Australoid isn't one coherent grouping, it's an imperfect umbrella term but one that aligns more than making proto-Jomon proto-mongoloids.
The denisovan admixture event occurred before proto-jomon left Sunda it seems.
We now are at the point of openly questioning the possibility of non-denisovan/Neanderthal archaic ancestry. That'll add another piece to the puzzle but who knows, so much is underwater now
Does this make sense?
Joshua Flores
We don't have a genetic sample of proto Jomon(or proto Eurasian) in the first place.
The Sanganji Jomon clearly have some sort of northern affinity and the Yayoi absorbed the central/northern Jomon.
The scope of the study was clearly limited to the Sanganji Jomon there was no mention of their purported Australoid origin or speculations of what the proto Jomon were.
Zachary Perry
It's there, we now have confirmed denisovan and austro-melanesian affinities in the Aleutian Islands and South America.
It is theorized that this austronesian-melanesian component while more diluted is the result of a pre-North Eurasian and north East Eurasian expansion of the Americas.
This northern Australoid group is real, there is no other way the genes mentioned above traveled to the americas. This is what grounds my argument.
Jose Russell
veddoids are the original ppl of asia from whom other races developed.
caucasoid elamites moved to india and introduced the dravidian language to veddoids of india.
dravidians are veddoids who adopted the language of the elamite elites
indians are veddoids. elamites (migrants from persia) created harappa. The Veddoid natives of India experienced Dravidification by adopting the language of the Elamites. mitochondrial DNA (which is maternally inherited) studies indicated that Indian mtDNA lineages cluster with the southeast Asians (Papuans), indicative of the Australoid-Veddoid substratum.
No this is inaccurate. Veddoids are amongst the earliest diverging australoids population (second only to Sentielese/Onge/Jawara/etc.. maybe)
Elamo-Dravidian is tenuously recognized as a potential theory and I am saying it nicely.
The haplogroups of Indians and Southeast Asians are different however we do know 4k years ago Veddoids did migrate to Australia and forever influence the genetics of atleast Northern Territory aboriginals.
mtDNA tracks maternal ancestry, which shows Veddoid maternal ancestry for Indians
The Australoids are a race of people with wavy hair, spread over the whole of India, Burma and the islands of Southeast Asia. They are said by some to "form the bedrock of the people." They cultivated rice and vegetables, and made sugar from sugarcane. Their Australoid language has survived in many Indian tribes, including the Kol and Munda (Mundari) in Eastern and Central India.
The majority of modern Indians have adopted either Dravid (Elamite) or Hindi (Aryan) languages that replaced their ancestral Australoid (Veddoid) languages.
~50k yrs ago veddoids from india followed coastal route to australia to become aussie abos
~5k yrs ago veddoids from india returned and reinforced themselves in australia
veddoids form the bedrock race and have spawned the mongoloids/caucasoids and countless others
elamites are caucasoid from iran area who dominated over veddoids before yamna
dravids are veddoids who adopted elamite language
in india there still exists veddoids who speak the original australoid language related to austro-aboriginal lang
