Talk:Proto-Australoid
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is supported by WikiProject Anthropology.
This project provides a central approach to Anthropology-related subjects on Wikipedia. |
| Stub | This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the quality scale. |
| ??? | This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the importance scale. |
Contents |
[edit] Cleanup
This article needs copyediting (which I can do, but not tonite), editing for clarity (which I can do some of but not all because I don't know the subject well enough to know what was intended), and hopefully some citations/sources/links, which hopefully someone with an interest in the topic can do.--Anchoress 06:33, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
- First sweep of copyediting done. Capitalisation was inconsistent and is not my strength, so I tried to make it consistent but I don't know if I did it right. I'm wondering about cap conventions about the following words:
- Australoid
- Makran
- dravidian
- red sea
- proto-australoids
- I know it'll need at least one more sweep of copyediting, I'll come back to this or if someone else gets to it first then cool.--Anchoress 00:47, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
- I've noticed that the tense is contradictory in places, but I don't know the conventions for fixing it; the problem is that the article is concurrently covering both the historical and present-day examples of the race, and not making a distinction between them (for instance, their physical description is probably consistent over time, but is the description of their diet historical, or modern? If it's modern, is it consistent across all the pockets of this race throughout Australasia?).--Anchoress 01:47, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Question about content
Please, explain, who exactly are "Proto-Australoids" and "Negritos"? I guess that Proto-Australoids are the Veddas+some continental Indian tribes, but who are Negritos? The nearest Negritos I know live on the Andamanese Islands. Cartouche, 19th August 2006
- I don't know who you are asking but I moved it out of the 'cleanup' section because it doesn't seem to have anything to do with cleanup. I didn't write the article and I don't know anything more about the topic than you do (probably a lot less), and if the article itself doesn't answer the question maybe the best thing for you to do would be to find some refs and add the info? Anchoress 01:50, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Websites on Proto-Australoids
I don't know if these will be any good, but it's a start.
--Anchoress 01:04, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
the first two links dont work and the third link what is a tamil is taken from an afrocentric/black supremacist site. please post credible information that means something.
do not post links from afrocentrics like runoko rashidi and cheikh anta diop —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.160.80.235 (talk) 10:12, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Evidence!
I see no evidence for this. Citations are most definately needed. To say a group of "Proto-Australoids" "are known to have spoken" a particular language is especially ridiculous sounding. D.E. Cottrell 05:13, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
- I agree. I was the one who added all the citation tags; I thought at the time I might have gone overboard, but looking back now (after a couple of months) I think it's actually an exceptionally sloppy article. I'd almost favour scrapping it and starting over (except I'm not volunteering :-).)--Anchoress 05:25, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] WTF?
I can't understand why this page has been reduced to a few lines. I checked the history and there was actually an article here at some stage... maybe not brilliantly written but at least there was some info. I'm disinclined to add what little I know on the subject if it's just going to be deleted.--Matt Oid 09:09, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Physical anthropology vs. genetics
Are there any references identifying the southern Out of Africa migration postulated based on mtDNA and Y lineages, and the earlier idea of an Australoid physical type based on similarity of appearance between indigenous Australians and some peoples in India? It seems they are being casually equated because they are both placed in about the same region. Please, find citations for this, or it should go. --JWB (talk) 22:45, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, there are a few including:
- Lahr MM, Foley R: Multiple dispersals and modern human origins. Evol Anthropol 1994; 3: 48–60.
- Cavalli-Sforza LL, Menozzi P, Piazza A: History and geography of human genes. Princeton, Princeton University Press, 1994.
- Quintana-Murci L, Semino O, Bandelt HJ, Passarino G, McElreavey K, Santachiara-Benerecetti AS: Genetic evidence on an early exit of Homo sapiens sapiens from Africa through eastern Africa. Nat Genet 1999; 23: 437–441.
- Redd AJ, Roberts-Thomson J, Karafet T et al: Gene flow from the Indian subcontinent to Australia: evidence from the Y chromosome. Curr Biol 2002; 12: 673–677.
Twalls (talk) 05:50, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Cavalli-Sforza et al. covers Australoids on pp. 355-356 of the Abridged Edition and specifically says genetic relationship had *not* been found among "Australoid" populations.
Lahr and Foley does not mention the word "Australoid" at all.
Redd et al. does not mention the word "Australoid" either. It does reconstruct a genetic relationship between India and Australia, but at a much more recent timescale than the original Out of Africa migration.
I don't see a PDF of Quintana-Murci et al. A later article reviewing it [1] does not use the term Australoid and also finds the whole "southern route" hypothesis to be not supported by genetics. --JWB (talk) 04:19, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks - that certainly warrants a closer look, then. I got those citations from another study that used them to support that point. I'll review and get back. Twalls (talk) 20:21, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Out of curiosity, what was that other study that used them to support that point? I'd like to take a look at it too. --JWB (talk) 15:44, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Removed black and white picture
the picture is archaic and there is no way of knowing where it was taken. furthermore i feel it is better to present a proper picture. this is an old archaic picture of people no longer living. its like showing pictures of archaic egyptians. its meaningless.
i think more suitable pics would be those of aboriginals living in australia. or closely related groups such as samoans or tongans or other such proper pictures. not archaic pictures of now extinct populations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arjuna316 (talk • contribs) 19:42, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Hey twalls i corrected it sorry about that .
thanks twalls i corrected the information. i deleted it by mistake. also just to let u know the migrations happened from asia to australia not the other way around. i will also add later discussion about the genetic isolation of aboriginals from the rest of the world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arjuna316 (talk • contribs) 19:49, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Sounds good. Thanks! Twalls (talk) 20:21, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Removed some of the see also links
i removed some of the links in the see also section because if it is the case then we would have to start discussing the genetics of every country in south and south east asia. this is meaningless and waste of time.
this section is for the aboriginal people of australia. why not use it to discuss the genetics of the aboriginal australian population. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arjuna316 (talk • contribs) 20:55, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
The term "Australoid" was coined specifically to include non-Australians, i.e. some people in India. It is not the same as Indigenous Australian. --JWB (talk) 19:32, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
australoid is no longer in use the only people who support this theory are black supremacists or afrocentrics
if u really wanted to include some populations it would be the entire south east asia because that is were the land bridge was formed to move into australia. if u wanted to include india then u would probably have to include the middle east as well. then u will end up including everyone.
which is the reason i felt that this section should deal only with aboriginals, samoans, tongans or similar related groups. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.160.80.235 (talk) 10:19, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Look at Google Scholar search on Proto-Australoid and you will see the term is used almost exclusively in physical anthropology of Indian populations, and that most publications are by Indian scientists. This is what the article is supposed to document, and actually did to some extent until the article was blanked on 25 October 2006 with no justification.
I agree that the material on the initial migration of modern humans from Africa should not be the focus of this article. It should be refocused on the actual use of the term Proto-Australoid, which is physical anthropology of India.
Either Australoid or Proto-Australoid are not particularly associated with Afrocentrists - they use a hodgepodge of terms and seem to particularly like "Negrito", and they are the ones who indiscriminately include SE Asia and Middle East as you are suggesting, and practically every part of the globe except possibly Northern Europe. In the Google Scholar results, only result #10 by WB Chandler is Afrocentric. --JWB (talk) 15:32, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
