tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7315236707728759521.post4802564000402322673..comments2024-03-28T21:52:52.100-06:00Comments on Dispatches From Turtle Island: Settling OceaniaAndrew Oh-Willekehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02537151821869153861noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7315236707728759521.post-49670872899982549792017-09-20T18:59:32.161-06:002017-09-20T18:59:32.161-06:00I've skimmed through the paper but haven't...I've skimmed through the paper but haven't really firmly assimilated what it has to say yet. It is certainly a more colorful history with more human agency and choice than the standard bland narrative.andrewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08172964121659914379noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7315236707728759521.post-10321378917888059072017-09-20T17:49:19.565-06:002017-09-20T17:49:19.565-06:00About time someone did this analysis!
"The...About time someone did this analysis! <br /><br />"These results suggest that the initial colonization of Remote Oceania was by people whose ancestors had not yet mixed with Papuans, and that Papuan ancestry was introduced to Remote Oceania by more recent migrations". <br /><br />Oh dear. Another point of argument between me and Maju all along. To me it has always been obvious that there was a secondary movement east from the Solomons of Papuans over top of an Austronesian expansion. But I hadn't realised the extent of secondary movement! <br /><br />"the aboriginal Australian samples reveal a baffling signal of admixture, showing both Papuan and Bougainville ancestry components in roughly equal proportion" <br /><br />The position of the Australian Aborigines in the PC is very interesting. New Guinea Highlanders cluster on their own while Australian Aborigines fit in with populations to the immediate northeast of New Guinea! <br /><br />"the most likely explanation is that Australia, NGH, and Bougainville all share ancestry but NGH and Bougainville experienced more genetic drift after population divergence. This enhanced drift<br />is more easily detected as a separate ancestry component in the ADMIXTURE analysis, and since aboriginal Australians share ancestry with both ancestry components, they are (mistakenly) assigned as admixed". <br /><br />That could be the explanation. <br /><br />terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.com