Maju: &quot;The argument is there but it is always...

Maju: "The argument is there but it is always very limited: only 2% of Indian Y-DNA,"

Two percent is what would be expected, since we are talking about an affinity between a very small minority population in South Asia and a large population in Australia."

"unable to justify the alleged morphological similitudes"

Their sample from South Asia included both South India and Sri Lanka, which is the home of the Vedda, an australoid tribal group.

"(too shallow in any case" - IMO a matter of shared preservation of some archaisms in the past much more widespread,"

Certainly a debatable point.

"Plus it's a 2002 paper, from a time when Indian C was mush less researched (Y-DNA C5 was only described in the last two years)."

Has a refutation been published? Is the new data incompatible in some way with that presented in 2002?

"Plus it is generally accepted that India could have been at the origin of all Eurasians, including Australian Aborigines."

They are aware of this and if you read the paper you'll see that they took such a possibility into account -- and saw only a South Asiatic-Australian connection for the particular haplogroup under consideration. More recent studies may have revealed other possibilities, of course.

"Plus some have argued that there is a more recent, albeit very minor, flow between India and Australia."

They see the connection as recent, ca 5,000 years ago, and associate it with the introduction of the Dingo, plus several other indicators of significant change in Australia during the Holocene. This does NOT gibe with the picture I presentd in my "Echoes" essay, which posited a much earlier date for the connection, but it's not incompatible with it either. I'll be looking into this whole issue soon and reporting my thoughts on the blog.