Talk:Andamanese peoples/Archive 1

Fire
To quote from a CBS News news article, Fate Of Indigenous Tribes Unknown:

The tribes live the most ancient, nomadic lifestyle known to man, frozen in their Paleolithic past. Many produce fire by rubbing stones. They fish and hunt with bow and arrow, and live in community huts of leaves and straw.

Khoikhoi 00:20, 28 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Are you sure that this was not said in reference to the Shompen or another indigenous tribe of the Nicobar Islands? It has been a generally accepted tenet of anthropology for a very long time now that the Andamanese did not know any method of creating fire prior to contact with outsiders. Ebizur (talk) 22:34, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:INDIA Banner/Andaman and Nicobar Islands workgroup Addition
Note: WP India Project Banner with Andaman and Nicobar Islands workgroup parameters was added to this article talk page because the article falls under Category:Andaman and Nicobar Islands or its subcategories. Should you feel this addition is inappropriate, please undo my changes and update/remove the relavent categories to the article --  TinuCherian  (Wanna Talk?) - 05:37, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Evidence of more recent contact
The Andamanese are not as isolated as previously thought. The belief that they were isolated for 60,000 years is diproven by the fact that they had the bow and arrow which came out of Africa about 18,000 years ago, possibly with the arrival of the Nostratic languages. Certainly there are no evidence of bows before the Kebaran and Ibero Maurasian cultures introduced them into Eurasia. 91.48.166.228 (talk) 09:03, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Knowledge of Fire
Edward Cotton writes in Notes on the Tasmanian Aborigines Octavius, 1887 http://eprints.utas.edu.au/1887/ of the fire-lighting techniques described by a settler that was used among Aboriginal Tasmanians and so it seems unlikely, particularly in the absence of any cited contradictory evidence, that the Andamanese peoples did not have similar technology. LookingGlass (talk) 11:28, 12 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Tasmania is nowhere near the Andamans, the two groups of people are utterly unconnected, and the fact that the Tasmanians had firelighting techniques tells us nothing about whether the Andamanese had any. I am removing the "dubious" tag.Ordinary Person (talk) 10:43, 2 January 2016 (UTC)


 * You are of course correct about the locations of the two peoples being widely separated, however this does not seem to me to be relevant. It seems likely that the ability to harness fire was known even to homo erectus.  So it is really the migration route of humans that is key here, unless you are suggesting that the knowledge of fire was lost along the way but then rediscovered independently by the Tasmanians.  I find it a bit high-handed to revert prior to giving me or anyone else a chance to reply.   I welcome your interest but still, please let this be resolved by discussion here.  As I merely inserted a tag in the article to facilitate this I will undo your reversion until it is no longer pertinent.  LookingGlass (talk) 17:55, 2 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Don't worry, I'm not interested in a revert war. Fire-making was known to homo erectus, but this is not strong evidence that any other group of hominids had the ability to make fire. Small groups of humans sometimes lose knowledge, perhaps because of the deaths of key group members or because of a temporary lack of resources. To present some parallels: the early Bantu people in West Africa had iron-smelting knowledge in the 12th century but their descendants in the Cape in the 17th century had lost this ability. The people who originally colonised Easter Island had the ability to make ocean-faring canoes (obviously), but the people who were living there in the 19th century had lost this ability. So it can happen. Question is: did something like this happen to the Andamanese with regard to fire? The weight of documtary evidence seems to support the hypothesis. Example:Andaman and Nicobar Islands (Imperial Gazetteer India - Provincial) 1909 (edited by R.C.Temple), page 21, says "Close to every hut is a small platform for surplus food, about 18 inches above the ground, and within it at least one fire is carefully preserved. This is the only thing the Andamanese are really careful about; for they do not how to produce fire, though they show much skill in carrying smouldering logs by land or sea so that they are not extinguished."Ordinary Person (talk) 03:54, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Andamanese people. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131020185236/http://www.andaman.org/ to http://www.andaman.org

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 01:46, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Problematic IP-edits
At 27 august 2015, 5 different IPs, but all starting with 117, made a series of edits. At least one of them added "info" that's not in the source. I expect that the other eidts need be checked too. Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!   21:38, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Andamanese people. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added tag to http://awa.survivalinternational.org/news/tribes/jarawa
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927020220/http://awa.survival-international.org/news/video/jarawa to http://awa.survival-international.org/news/video/jarawa

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:26, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Andamanese people. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131107225208/http://censusindia.gov.in/Tables_Published/SCST/ST%20Lists.pdf to http://censusindia.gov.in/Tables_Published/SCST/ST%20Lists.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:48, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Andamanese. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081029071336/http://hpgl.stanford.edu/publications/CB_2002_p1-18.pdf to http://hpgl.stanford.edu/publications/CB_2002_p1-18.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:21, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

"Contributed?"
I see the following text:

"The stature of the people within the population has changed over a relatively short time. Scientists believe the variation in stature can be contributed to about 200 gene loci that influence height. Similarly, variation in skin color can be contributed to the great number of gene loci that affect the expression of that phenotype."

I believe both appearances of the word "contributed" should be replaced with "attributed," but I'm a Wikipedia n00b and not a subject matter expert, so I'm reluctant to make the change myself.

Am I wrong?

2605:A601:4382:8800:6CA8:EBC1:5B7F:21A4 (talk) 22:51, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Edit conflict, explanation my edits and the improvements...
At first, I have slightly reworded, than moved dublicate content from the origin section (about Y-DNA and mt-DNA) into the respective sections about genetics. Than I removed parts about genetic studies of Indians/South Asians which are, word by word, discussed in Genetics and archaeogenetics of South Asia, and restructured the section/names.

Than I included more studies dealing with the Andamanese genetics and their external relationships.

Furthermore I corrected bad grammar and spelling mistakes.

See:https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Andamanese_peoples&diff=1058796031&oldid=1058789968

I do not see why I have been reverted back to a mess version, and why I got reverted during my try to split up the changes, to make it easier to verify by reviewers?!

I see no problem with the changes, as they improved the mess we have now. I request that an user check and explain the problem, than, if necessary discuss it, to find a solution and to improve the article.80.243.173.100 (talk) 20:28, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
 * To summarize what I changed: Head image was changed to a better quality one. Dublicate content was merged in the respective sections. Unrelated content was removed and can be found at Genetics and archaeogenetics of South Asia. Slightly reworded and fixed grammar errors and bad spelling. Edits for consistency, per reference. Than, I included studies about Andamanese genetics and their external relationships to other people, including two PCA graphics showing their position compared to other people. Please explain what is the issue and dont simply revert to a mess version. Check it out and compare if necessary. Our all goal is to improve the article and not to let this mess here.80.243.173.100 (talk) 20:45, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

There was obviously a mistake, you did forget to remove two paragraphs about Indian people and the Indus Valley civilization. I have merged the information into a small paragraph, and linked it to the main article Genetics and archaeogenetics of South Asia.-2001:4BC9:921:BA4B:145A:F80E:7C4A:15BF (talk) 09:15, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Clothes
What might be the clothes? 183.82.28.76 (talk) 02:49, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Photo Problem
The lead photo for this article identifies its subjects as a family group living on Great Andaman Island. The article Onge uses the same photo and identifies its subjects as an Ongan family group. The problem is, that same article concerning the Onge also declares that all the surviving Onge live in two small reserves on Little Andaman Island. So..... either this family is on Great Andaman but is not Onge, or this family is Onge but not on Great Andaman. 70.51.89.69 (talk) 14:48, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * You are right, the family in this picture is probably of Great Andamanese descend, not Onge. I will just remove the picture from the article Onge people. Cheers!WikiEdit2204 (talk) 15:23, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

External Genetic affinities of Andamanese peoples
The first line says they are "closely" related to Ancient Ancestral South Indians, which is untrue. The sister pages of this one say they are distantly related to AASI population and are evidenced by multiple citations. Other places in the same page contradict the claim as well. Andamanese people are more closely related to East asian and South east asian tribal groups such as taiwanese aborigines, and distantly related to present and past south asian populations. The only affinities these two groups have is superficial phenotypes. Haplo group analysis further substantiates this. Covertschreb (talk) 10:00, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Inappropriate photo in here of what seems to be a little girl with breast exposed
Please delete that photo of the topless child. It’s disgusting and could be considered child pornography. It’s under the “genetics” section. 107.179.20.180 (talk) 18:42, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Removal of studies regarding archaic admixture
I have removed two sentences about two papers that do not find archaic admixture in Andamanese populations because they are not correlated to what is actually described in the preceding sentence. The preceding sentence discusses a 2019 paper that found evidence for "EH1 ancestry" in various Asian and Pacific populations, including the Andamanese. The subsequent sentences, which I have now deleted including one which is about a 2018 study, reference a 2016 study and is not in reference to the 2019 study that the preceding sentence discusses. Saouirse (talk) 02:07, 30 May 2023 (UTC)