Yes, there’s 28 families of Austrailian Aborginal languages all of them thought to be related.
I should also correct myself most aborignal languages which are still spoken by a decent number of people today belong to the Pama-Nyungan family.
Have they traced all Australian Aboriginal languages to be interrelated? (Presumably they are, but have they managed to trace the relationships of the modern variants far back?)
Half of the 500 estimated Austrailian Aborginal languages extant in the 18th century are extinct and half those left are almost extinct so knowledge is scanty. Of course no written records exist so the relativity of the languages can only be worked by comparision (but this is the same for alot of families).
But yes all Austrailian Aborginal languages are thought to be related in some way (i.e. to my knowledge there are no continental Austrailian isolates).
Half of the 500 estimated Austrailian Aborginal languages extant in the 18th century are extinct and half those left are almost extinct so knowledge is scanty. Of course no written records exist so the relativity and history of the languages can only be worked by comparision (but this is the same for alot of families).
But yes all Austrailian Aborginal languages are thought to be related in some way (i.e. to my knowledge there are no continental Austrailian isolates).
Yes, that’s why I said “some have suggested,” to further the OP’s understanding of the evolution of the field of study. I have already read up on Lapita culture, but thanks for the advice anyway.
But it is just as likely (and more parsimonous) to assume that any similarities between ancient Americans and Austaloids is that they came from the same root stock and that some went to Australia and some immigrated north, then rafted alond the coast to get to America that way, rather than rafting across the entire Pacific ocean. Since there is no direct evidence that either route was taken, the least complicted route makes more sense to me, and to those anthropoligists I’m familiar with.
Sorry if it seemed like i was pointing you out, but you didn’t include the “Heyerdahl’s theory has largely been considered wrong due to evidence that…” and discussed all the things i talked about.
Most of the mention of Lapita culture was a general statement for anyone else who wants to learn how the various Polynesian cultures are related (and even the Melanesian and Micronesian cultures) to their brothers and sisters further west. Not particularly for you.
Despite all these theories of how the aryans came to a predominantly dravidian India the new theories supported by a group of historians is that the theory of an aryan invasion is a myth and all the present inhabitants of the subcontinent are native indigenous people. They accuse the british historians of adopting a policy of divide and rule by which indians are divided into aryans and dravidians.In fact these neo historians proclaim the existence of a saraswati valley civilization contrary to the popular belief of an indus valley civilization. The river saraswati is mentioned in ancient hindu vedas as a river formed by discontinuous lakes;saras-lake. Evidence of the existence of an underground the river has been established by recent satellite imagery findings. David Frawley disapproves of the earlier theory of an aryan race invading india as one meant to promote colonial interests if the british in his book THE MYTH OF
ARYAN INVASION OF INDIA
http://www.hindubooks.org/david_frawley/myth_aryan_invasion/the_aryan_invasion_theory/page1.htm
Please post ur views with respect to this theory also.
Hindu fundamentalist ideology determining the outcome science is supposed to find. That isn’t science. This is the ideology promoted by Hindu fundamentalists that want to establish a fascist state and get rid of all the non-Hindus. The same ones that assassinated Gandhi and organized massacres of non-Hindus and untouchables. Be very afraid. Seriously. Frawley is one of the ideologists trying to bend archaeology and linguistics to his fundie agenda. This is in the same category with Christian fundie creation science, except that the Hindu fundamentalist agenda includes mass murder.
I guess having a theory that dravidians and aryans were one people and there was no invasion by aryans helps in greater unification than division. Wouldn’t this kind of a theory that all Indians who inhabit the sub continent are of the same race prevent people from turning against each other?
BTW Muslims of India are also decedents of the same ancestors as present day Hindus.I dont really understand how this theory would result in mass murder and further hindu fundamentalism.
More recently, Indian Muslims are (well, some, at least) descended from several lines of Mughal and other Muslim kings, some of whom were tolerant of their Hindu subjects, and some of whom were… less so. Taxes levied on those who refused to accept Allah as the one true god, for example.
Of course, this is an extremely thin excuse for antipathy toward Muslims, but you do find this kind of rhetoric in mandirs here and there.
But then, how come that Indo-european languages are spoken in India? Did local people decided to switch to the language of some remote people who never set a foot in India? Doesn’t make sense to me…
I have nothing to add, except to say that threads like these are why I read the SDMB. This is hugely fascinating and informative.
Just at a glance the No-Aryan-Invasion types are just not credible. The basic linguistic evidence is overwhelming. The patterns of distribution of Indo-European and Dravidian languages in India (two separate language families, mind you) show that the Dravidian languages were once spoken throughout the subcontinent, as far as modern Pakistan, and that the Indo-European languages displaced them throughout India. couple that with the fact that Indo-European languages are spoken in Persia and Europe as well, the No-Aryan-Invasion theory holds exactly zero water.
Both archaeological and linguistic evidence point to a migration from southeast Asia into Melanesia then Micronesia and finally Polynesia. Established dates show that Hawaii and Easter Island were among the last islands colonized, which would be expected in a migration from west to east.
Of course, the one wrench in the works is the site of Monte Verde in Chile which no longer exists. Dates at Monte Verde go back to about 12500 BCE, which predated Clovis by about 1000 years. However, while there are other sites in the Americas that may also predate Clovis, they seem to be on the eastern part of the continents (Cactus Hill in Virginia for example).
Monte Verde is being questioned about the accuracy of its dates. That, and the fact that there is a dearth of other contemporaneous site on the west coast indicates that is was possibly just a fluke and not the push off point for a trip east over lots of open water.
Good idea. Here’s what he (and co-authors Paolo Menozzi and Alberto Piazza) have to say from The History and Geography of Human Genes: