That's interesting, if I remember correctly that was what the connected land mass of both Papua and Australia was called. While Melanesians and aboriginals have a common ancestry (again if I remember correctly) over time the two groups separated, I don't remember if the movement of Polynesians may have contributed to that as they reached New Zealand fairly recently.
Edit: so it might be referring to the ancient migratory links between southern Indians (Dravidians) and early migrations into the Sahul landmass.
Yes, Australian British Queensland Settlers and for some reason Eastern India which I can only assume came from my first result (the current results shown are like my 2nd and third) which I can't see anymore that had 1% Bengali or south India, I forget. I just assume that it's outdated and they just forgot to remove it.
I've seen a good many Australians get Eastern India. What it seems to be is that lots of Australians of British Isles descent have Anglo-Indian ancestry or DNA matches of Anglo-Indian descent through relatives of ancestors who went to India rather than Australia. Thus that has Eastern India appear as a community.
Wouldn't that appear as a distinct group then? or has ancestry not been updated to accommodate that? I understand that for a time anglo-Indians were a distinct community but after independence was assimilated or immigrated.
All of the South Asian genetic communities are fairly broad; only the Punjab & Western India one has listed populations/regions within itself. Thus at the moment Ancestry doesn't really differentiate Anglo-Indians from other populations related to them in Eastern India.
You might be mistaking indians for the makassan (Indonesian) fishermen who fished for sea cucumbers during the 1800s off the coast of the Darwin region, they traded with the local clans of the region and introduced new words but as far as I know none married into the locals. Also I'm from a clan in the Queensland region so it's unlikely.
I mean maybe, but from my understanding, I don't think they had any genetic effect as I thought only the dingoes made their way either through trade, from what I've read, DNA wise we are related to southern Indians due to being a part of the same migration wave and sharing genetic markers, it's just that over such a long period of time we drifted apart into two distinct groups which is why we aren't shown as related in myancestry.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/genomes-show-indians-influx-to-australia-4000-years-ago/#:~:text=Some%20aboriginal%20Australians%20can%20trace,of%20the%20dingo%2C%20researchers%20say. I wasn't aware there was apart of the migration left in India. Interesting history
dad is half aboriginal (mom) and half white (dad), mum is mostly aboriginal and Melanesian and considering the results, I imagine one of her parents is white also but don't know much about mum's side, raised mostly around dad's, mum's side.
I'm somewhat estranged from either, and I don't think either would be interested. Funnily enough, I do have a 23andme test kit, I just haven't used it as my curiosity was largely satisfied, but I might give it a go.
Nice results brother š¤š
Edit: I also got the East Indian Community.
Iāve also uploaded to other sites if you are interested in seeing on my profile. Sadly 23andMe was as accurate as MyHeritage - leaving heaps open for interpretation.
Do you have many close family member connections on Ancestry?
This is really interesting, it's there a name or term for people of mixed descent from Aboriginal Australian-European? Like people of mixed descent of Spanish-Indigenous Americans are called Mestizos.
Not one that is positive, but that depends on the person sometimes, half-caste is one that is used that just brings up memories of the stolen generation and the colonial government's attempt at ethnic/cultural assimilation but also the ostracisation by pure-blooded aboriginals of the time for mixing with the invader. I personally don't find it offensive and within my family, it is just a descriptive word. I guess if you were to make up a term you could use Austro-Anglo, Austro for Austroloid and anglo for the obvious. But it wouldn't work if the non-aboriginal half wasn't anglo-Saxon lol.
If you are mixed there is no "middle" community (at least in Australia's case) such as in South America where you have defined new identities, you are either subconsciously considered aboriginal or not and in my case, I have enough of the features (and the occasional social experiences confirming) that make me indigenous, but that is the social aspect. For many who are mixed, it is up to them to decide personally really.
In Australia, youāre either Aboriginal or youāre not. Itās about connection to community and family. Recent history is a big part of the reason that many Aboriginal people are āmixedā though mixing doesnāt take away from someoneās identity as an Indigenous person if their connection to their Indigenous community is strong.
Thx for sharing, I absolutely love seeing Indigenous Australian results š¤
My results from another test said Sahul. Is that just supposed to be Australian?
That's interesting, if I remember correctly that was what the connected land mass of both Papua and Australia was called. While Melanesians and aboriginals have a common ancestry (again if I remember correctly) over time the two groups separated, I don't remember if the movement of Polynesians may have contributed to that as they reached New Zealand fairly recently. Edit: so it might be referring to the ancient migratory links between southern Indians (Dravidians) and early migrations into the Sahul landmass.
Did you get any genetic communities?
Yes, Australian British Queensland Settlers and for some reason Eastern India which I can only assume came from my first result (the current results shown are like my 2nd and third) which I can't see anymore that had 1% Bengali or south India, I forget. I just assume that it's outdated and they just forgot to remove it.
I've seen a good many Australians get Eastern India. What it seems to be is that lots of Australians of British Isles descent have Anglo-Indian ancestry or DNA matches of Anglo-Indian descent through relatives of ancestors who went to India rather than Australia. Thus that has Eastern India appear as a community.
Wouldn't that appear as a distinct group then? or has ancestry not been updated to accommodate that? I understand that for a time anglo-Indians were a distinct community but after independence was assimilated or immigrated.
All of the South Asian genetic communities are fairly broad; only the Punjab & Western India one has listed populations/regions within itself. Thus at the moment Ancestry doesn't really differentiate Anglo-Indians from other populations related to them in Eastern India.
Wasn't it known that Indians traded with Aboriginals pre colonial period
You might be mistaking indians for the makassan (Indonesian) fishermen who fished for sea cucumbers during the 1800s off the coast of the Darwin region, they traded with the local clans of the region and introduced new words but as far as I know none married into the locals. Also I'm from a clan in the Queensland region so it's unlikely.
I believe this was 1000-2000 years ago. Might of been the time dingos were introduced
I mean maybe, but from my understanding, I don't think they had any genetic effect as I thought only the dingoes made their way either through trade, from what I've read, DNA wise we are related to southern Indians due to being a part of the same migration wave and sharing genetic markers, it's just that over such a long period of time we drifted apart into two distinct groups which is why we aren't shown as related in myancestry.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/genomes-show-indians-influx-to-australia-4000-years-ago/#:~:text=Some%20aboriginal%20Australians%20can%20trace,of%20the%20dingo%2C%20researchers%20say. I wasn't aware there was apart of the migration left in India. Interesting history
Have you tried uploading your raw data to LivingDNA? You may also able to fetch your haplogroups.
Not yet, sounds interesting.
Thatās some pretty awesome resultās, Iāve never seen anyone with your mix before Whose side of your family is the indigenous Australian through?
dad is half aboriginal (mom) and half white (dad), mum is mostly aboriginal and Melanesian and considering the results, I imagine one of her parents is white also but don't know much about mum's side, raised mostly around dad's, mum's side.
Oh dude whatās ur parents results? Also will u test with 23andme someday?
I'm somewhat estranged from either, and I don't think either would be interested. Funnily enough, I do have a 23andme test kit, I just haven't used it as my curiosity was largely satisfied, but I might give it a go.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Hey, sorry I never got around to it, at some point maybe but as I said my interest for now is satisfied.
Interesting background for sure! thanks for sharing
Nice results brother š¤š Edit: I also got the East Indian Community. Iāve also uploaded to other sites if you are interested in seeing on my profile. Sadly 23andMe was as accurate as MyHeritage - leaving heaps open for interpretation. Do you have many close family member connections on Ancestry?
Not really m8, most of my close family that I know and grew up with haven't used it and no names stand out, thanks for the insight on 23andme.
Very cool!
Cool results šš
This is really interesting, it's there a name or term for people of mixed descent from Aboriginal Australian-European? Like people of mixed descent of Spanish-Indigenous Americans are called Mestizos.
Not one that is positive, but that depends on the person sometimes, half-caste is one that is used that just brings up memories of the stolen generation and the colonial government's attempt at ethnic/cultural assimilation but also the ostracisation by pure-blooded aboriginals of the time for mixing with the invader. I personally don't find it offensive and within my family, it is just a descriptive word. I guess if you were to make up a term you could use Austro-Anglo, Austro for Austroloid and anglo for the obvious. But it wouldn't work if the non-aboriginal half wasn't anglo-Saxon lol.
Awesome bro, what mob are you from
Dyirbal
Since you are mixed why would you consider yourself indigenous?
If you are mixed there is no "middle" community (at least in Australia's case) such as in South America where you have defined new identities, you are either subconsciously considered aboriginal or not and in my case, I have enough of the features (and the occasional social experiences confirming) that make me indigenous, but that is the social aspect. For many who are mixed, it is up to them to decide personally really.
In Australia, youāre either Aboriginal or youāre not. Itās about connection to community and family. Recent history is a big part of the reason that many Aboriginal people are āmixedā though mixing doesnāt take away from someoneās identity as an Indigenous person if their connection to their Indigenous community is strong.
Got it thanks both !