india-australia

[Guest guest]

this is a post made by someone at a history site i go to often and i found it pretty interesting and though i would run it through this forum to get reactions. please nothing crazy

 

he was saying how many places in australia and india share linguistic commonalities in city names. basically the names sound similar.

 

here's the jist of his post:

--------------

I've been reading a reference book about India, and it struck me how some of the place names reminded me of Australian place names. I've done a little digging, and this is what I came up with for an example. They aren't entirely similar, but they are similar enough to me to make me wonder about the relationship between India and Australia in terms of migration in prehistory:

 

Australia

http://www.arts.monash.edu.au/ncas/...er/alpha.html#c

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...es_in_Australia

 

Coolaroo

Dhurringile

Jumbunna

Lanecoorie

Mooroopna

Murrindindi

Puckapunyal

Tallygaroopna

 

India

http://www.lib.mq.edu.au/digital/se...placenames.html

http://irfca.org/docs/place-names.html

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

 

Billoolly

Cattymalwarry

Mallavelli or Malvilly

Bhagwangola

 

------------

 

 

how do u guys feel about that? i do know that south indians are linguisticly and many i think are genetically related to austronesian people (aboriginies). the same in indonesia and madagascar. i would luv to know how that migration affected the ancient world before about 3000 BC.

 

also, does anyone know of any archeological evidence of life in india after harrappa (1900 BC) but before Buddha (600 BC)?

[Guest guest]

the aborigines are very similar to south indians. friend of mine once said they look exactly the same, sharing the features of the nose and skin tone, build, etc. aborigines are known to have inhabited australia for the past 40,000 years. and the two countries were once connected before the landmass separated...

[Guest guest]

I have done research on S.E.Asia incl. Austronesians. Amazing what they have done between 3000 BC and 500 AD.

 

[[ "how do u guys feel about that? i do know that south indians are linguisticly and many i think are genetically related to austronesian people (aboriginies). the same in indonesia and madagascar. i would luv to know how that migration affected the ancient world before about 3000 BC. "]]

 

Gotta correct something. I think you have mixed up different classifications with the word 'Austro' (south )in it. Your picture of who are Austronesian( AN ) is not correct. It looks like you mixed up the terms Austronesians with Austroloids.

 

Austronesians is a linguistic term for the Malayo-Polynesians. They migrated from Taiwan 4000 BC ( the Chinese taiwanese came just a few centuries ago ). They were probably the first ones who developed real open-ocean seafaring skills. Between 4000-3000BC they settled Fillipines , Indonesia, and Malaysia. From there they later on crossed west the entire Indian ocean to populate Madagascar. They sailed east to colonise most of the pacific islands( hawaii, tahiti,micronesia, Samoa,Eastern island and new zealand etc. Because they all speak Austronesian languages they are all called Austronesians .

 

Racially they mostly belong to different branches of mongoloid race. The Austronesians in Polynesia , micronesia and Melanesia on the other hand are linguistically Austronesian but genetically a later mixture of Austronesians and semi Papuans ( austroloids ).

 

The AUSTRO-LOIDS are different from Austronesians, its a RACIAL term : Papuans, Australian aboriginals, Asian negrito and according to some also the Veddas Sri lanka and certain SouthIndians tribes ). The Austroloids were also the oldest inhabitans of Indonesia , Fillipines, Malaysia but are for 90 % replaced by the Austronesians except for Papua New guinee and offcourse Australia. They generally dont speak Austronesian languages.

 

None of the aborigines of India and Sri lanka speak Austronesian languages ( there are some loanwords though ) also the Nicobar and Andaman dont speak them. These last ones speak Austro-Asiatic ( again the word Austro in it ) wich is a total different language family than Austronesian.

 

Anyway, Austronesian and Dravidian languages are linguistically not related, just a few loanwords in later times. There might be a ( remote ) linguistic relation between Dravidian and Australian Aboriginals though. Although their languages are not put in the same language family a somewhat similair sound might not be surprising since the older inhabitants of South India/ Sri Lanka ( The Veddoids etc.) and the Austroloid aboriginals of Australia are genitically classified as more or less same racial stock.

 

[Guest guest]

i did mix them up, as soon as you mentioned the true meaning of austronesian, i realized i was confusing them. but you assumed right. i meant the australoids. do you know the course of migration/settlement for these people originally as they came into asia and then to australia? did they stop in india, populate, then some moved on to indonesia and australia? were they wiped out from oceania and replaced by the austronesian mongoloids? also, i dont know f u heard, but recently evidence was found of south asian/south east asian settlements in California which predate the oldest Native American settlements by 3000 years. they believe they kept expanding west from asia through the islands of the pacific (fiji, hawaii) and then to cali. are these austronesian or australoid?

[Guest guest]

Austronesians is a linguistic term for the Malayo-Polynesians. They migrated from Taiwan 4000 BC ( the Chinese taiwanese came just a few centuries ago ). They were probably the first ones who developed real open-ocean seafaring skills. Between 4000-3000BC they settled Fillipines , Indonesia, and Malaysia. From there they later on crossed west the entire Indian ocean to populate Madagascar. They sailed east to colonise most of the pacific islands( hawaii, tahiti,micronesia, Samoa,Eastern island and new zealand etc. Because they all speak Austronesian languages they are all called Austronesians .

-----------

Austronesian may also be called as malayan or south mongolian. There's north mongolian with the representation of Mongolians & middle mongolian with the representation of Tibetans. The core of

Han, as a super-nation concept like Hindustani, is originated from 2 middle mongolian races, hua`sia & ciang. The former is regarded as the orthodox forefather of Han & the latter is also Tibetan's forefather. Burmans & a part of Tibetans have absorbed the bloods of south mong. & dark races.

 

South mongolians have migrated from prehistoric age in many waves from a wide range of E.A. coastline & islands. So it's absurd to talk about their races & sources. The race living in this range was called as Viet in ancient time. Viet only live with water & I heard that Thai, as a race branching from Viet, only live with woods. It's easy to telling a south mong. from other yellows: bigger eyes, nose, throat, & thinner build but same skin tone.

[Guest guest]

["i meant the australoids. do you know the course of migration/settlement for these people originally as they came into asia and then to australia? did they stop in india, populate, then some moved on to indonesia and australia?"]

 

I have to look that up. Surfing the internet will not alway produce good results, Before you know one enters a Afro-centric or SEAsiancentric sites that give their own swingnot based on objective research. The austroloid thing is quite complex though( there are several types that are described as Austroloid and it is not always clear if the Asian negrito who were in SEA and- at some places still are- belong to that classification like Vedda , Papua and Aboriginals )I do think the consensus is Austroloids entered from Asia to Indonesia and Australia when the sealevel was quite low. But if they went via India is not 100 % clear for me now. It can very well be possible and it is said sometimes they were first in SouthIndia and later moved on south but I have to do some research. It is also suggested somewhere they took a more northern route troug Northern India and one split south and another went to SEA to Indonesia and asutralia . There is also a theory they went via China to SEA and Indonesia and entered India later from SEA )But like I said I have to look for the most genuine before I can answer that. I will automatically stumble in to it within a week or so.

 

["were they wiped out from oceania and replaced by the austronesian mongoloids"]

 

That depends. The negritos in Indonesia, Malasia , fillipines and SEA are for 99% replaced by Austronesians ( the proto and Deutero malays )and later by other mongoloid people. A litle admixture at some places have took place but other Indonesian tribes are still 100% proto Malay. The bigger austroloids have only survived in xtreme east Indonesia but have became mixed and have adopted austronesian languages. The Papuans from new guinee survived well and were only little affected because they were in the interior of papua newguinee. They dont speak AN language except for some tribes at the coast who also adopted AN agriculture and metalworking. The islands east of Papua, melanesia, solomon were inhabited buy Papuatype but were settled with AN who also give them their language,agriculture etc. They are linguistically Austronesian but genetically mostly Papua. The island further in the Pacific, Tahiti, Samoa, etc Hawaii, eatstern Island and new zealand were uninhabited so the AN did not replace anybody but just settled and went on to the discover new islands ( part of their culture ).These type of AN were already somewhat mixed with darker ones before they entered the pacific, the socalled polynesians. Linguistically and culturally 100 % Austronesian, geneticaly mixed. It is without any doubt they crossed the entire pacific and also touched the south America coast. It is often suggested that the Olmecs of Mexico ( forerunners of Mayas) were descendants of Austronesians since Olmecs statues resemble non-mayalike Polynesian and Malay-austronesian faces and typical austronesian cultural things were found there like the blowgun,amazing stonesculpture, and ikatweaving (originated in austronesian settlements vietnam 1000 BC, pre-Indic BTW ).But this must have been a diferent and much earlier wave then since the Olmecs were from 1000 BC. Very interesting though and no matter how complex, with good archeological, anthropological and genetic reasearch we will know more.

 

About California I dont know. What do you mean by sout asian/east asian setllements ? What culture ? Do you mean 'Indic '( Indic can mean Indian or SEAsian with Indian elements) or something else ? If we talk off Indic we usually talk of the Indic elements after 100 AD since the oldest evidence sofar is that Indic elements showed up at that time in SEA.

[Guest guest]

It is also suggested somewhere they took a more northern route troug Northern India and one split south and another went to SEA to Indonesia and asutralia .

-----------

The range of australian in A.: Iran, India, Middle A., south part of Tibetan plateau, Indo-chinese peninsula, East A.

 

The islands east of Papua, melanesia, solomon were inhabited buy Papuatype but were settled with AN who also give them their language,agriculture etc. They are linguistically Austronesian but genetically mostly Papua.

------------

Don't you think Papuan & Tongan look a bit like Kennywickan at 9000 BC in Amer.?

 

(originated in austronesian settlements vietnam 1000 BC, pre-Indic BTW ).

------------

In all descendants of Viets, maybe only those in islands still speak austronesian. Those in China speak chinese dialects in old tone & those in the peninsula speak isolating lang. under the influence of China. I don't think "viet" to be old sound. It should be ":uet" according to some chinese dialects & it means "man".

[veddanegrito]

Very interesting this conversation about ethnical relationships between India and Australia. I'm concerned a lot with the question of an australoid peopling all over India and SE Asia. In these last times i've got an idea: to make a document (something like a synoptical table) that could contain on a side images showing australian aboriginals and on the other side showing veddoid and negrito tribals of Asia. This would allow us a faster and better comparison between them (as far as morphological features are concerned). So far i've collected some pictures about indigenous peoples in S and SE Asia (please visit sferrarini I would be glad to gather many more, as much as possible, but it isn't always easy. I'm wondering if among you who go across this forum, there is someone who has had the opportunity to gather a large amount of ethnographical images (both old and recent), or could indicate me a good online database (museums or libraries in India and anywhere for example) in which are stored these very interesting documents. I believe it would be very intriguing for example to show one next an other an australian aboriginal, a Paniya from Kerala, a Yanadi from Andhra Pradesh, a Munda from Orissa, a Sakai from Malaya, a Veddah from Ceylon or a Toala from Sulawesi. I could give many other examples. I'm wondering also if you have never found such ethnographical works by Anantha Krishna Iyer as:

 

- "The Cochin Tribes and Castes" (1909-1912)

 

- "The Travancore Tribes and Castes" (1937)

 

- "The Mysore Tribes and Castes" (1928-1935)

 

If someone is interested, i would be glad to forward by email attachment (232 kb) an old ethnographical paper related to the Porr tribe of western Cambodia. This paper was issued in 1905 on the review "Journal of the Siam Society" and covers several sides of this population: everyday life, religious beliefs, physical features, environment where they lived, economic resources, language spoken (also a small Porr vocabulary). The author, Dr. Jean Brengues (physician of french colonial administration) talks about some negrito features among them. Please contact me at sferrarini@hotmail.com

 

Thank you very much for your attention and my best regards.

 

 

Stefano Ferrarini - Italy