Thanks for the link! I thought there´d be comparative data with Australoids in the paper, but I suppose I´ll have to take your word on it.
A few quotes: " Taken together, these results show that Indian tribal and caste
populations derive largely from the same genetic heritage of Pleistocene southern and western Asians and have
received limited gene flow from external regions since the Holocene"
"More than 60% of Indians have
their maternal roots in Indian-specific branches of haplogroup
M. Because of its great time depth and virtual
absence in western Eurasians, it has been suggested that
314 Am. J. Hum. Genet. 72:313–332, 2003
haplogroup M was brought to Asia from East Africa,
along the southern route, by the earliest migration wave
of anatomically modern humans, ∼60,000 years ago
(Kivisild et al. 1999a, 1999b, 2000; Quintana-Murci et
al. 1999). Another deep late Pleistocene link through
haplogroup U was found to connect western Eurasian
and Indian populations. Less than 10% of the maternal
lineages of the caste populations had an ancestor outside
India in the past 12,000 years (Kivisild et al. 1999a,
1999b). mtDNA profiles from a larger set of populations
all over the subcontinent have bolstered the view
of fundamental genomic unity of Indians (Roychoudhury
et al. 2001). In contrast, the Y-chromosome genetic
distance estimates showed that the chromosomes of Indian
caste populations were more closely related to Europeans
than to eastern Asians (Bamshad et al. 2001).
The tendency of higher caste status to associate with
increasing affinities to European (specifically to eastern
European) populations hinted at a recent male-mediated
introduction of western Eurasian genes into the Indian
castes’ gene pool. The similarities with Europeans were
specifically expressed in substantial frequencies of clades
J and R1a (according to Y Chromosome Consortium
[YCC] 2002 nomenclature) in India. The exact location
of the origin of these haplogroups is still uncertain, as
is the timing of their spread (Zerjal et al. 1999; Bamshad
et al. 2001; Passarino et al. 2001; Quintana-Murci et
al. 2001; Wells et al. 2001)."
One question: when the authors say: "these southern Asian Pleistocene coastal settlers from Africa would have
provided the inocula for the subsequent differentiation of the distinctive eastern and western Eurasian gene pools." do they mean that these proto-Asians acted as a cathalist, or that they were in fact the ancestors of the Mongoloids and the Caucasoids?
East Asians and Indians shared common ancestry about 30,000 years ago. So basically speaking we can say that they're "indigenous" to India. About Australia, it has been claimed, according to the trihybrid model, that the continent was peopled by three different groups: 1)east asians 2) negritos and 3) Indians. Caste population might be different from tribal population, mind you. Indians that show affinity towards Australians are mostly tribals. Supposedly, the Indian influence in Austrlians is relatively recent, that is less than 5000 years.
