Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents Summary for Volumes 1, 2 and 3
- Contents
- Volume 1 Maps
- Volume 2 Maps
- Volume 3 Maps
- About the Contributors
- Volume 1
- I. Introduction
- II. Africa
- III. South and Southeast Asia
- IV. The Pacific
- 1.34 The Pacific: DNA
- 1.35 Sahul and Near Oceania in the Pleistocene
- 1.36 New Guinea during the Holocene
- 1.37 The Later Prehistory of Australia
- 1.38 Micronesia
- 1.39 Melanesia
- 1.40 Polynesia
- 1.41 New Zealand
- 1.42 The Pacific: Languages
- Volume 2
- Volume 3
- Index
- References
1.34 - The Pacific: DNA
from IV. - The Pacific
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 August 2014
- Frontmatter
- Contents Summary for Volumes 1, 2 and 3
- Contents
- Volume 1 Maps
- Volume 2 Maps
- Volume 3 Maps
- About the Contributors
- Volume 1
- I. Introduction
- II. Africa
- III. South and Southeast Asia
- IV. The Pacific
- 1.34 The Pacific: DNA
- 1.35 Sahul and Near Oceania in the Pleistocene
- 1.36 New Guinea during the Holocene
- 1.37 The Later Prehistory of Australia
- 1.38 Micronesia
- 1.39 Melanesia
- 1.40 Polynesia
- 1.41 New Zealand
- 1.42 The Pacific: Languages
- Volume 2
- Volume 3
- Index
- References
Summary
Initial Colonisation
Australia was probably occupied by humans at least fifty thousand years ago (Stringer 2002; see Chapter 1.35), at a time when lowered sea levels created a land-bridge between Australia and neighbouring New Guinea, and when the region was separated from the Eurasian landmass by only narrow straits such as are represented by Wallace’s Line. It therefore makes genetic sense to discuss Australia and Highland New Guinea as one unit (Sahul, as it is known), at least as far as the earliest prehistoric colonisation periods are concerned, and to disregard coastal New Guinea, with its Holocene Malayo-Polynesian genetic markers, for the early period.
The dates for the archaeological indications of the first colonisation of Australia are compatible with the out-of-Africa scenario outlined in the introductory chapters and Part II of this book. And the archaeogenetic evidence (which is provided by samples from living Aboriginal populations) gives only limited support for the “multiregional origin hypothesis”. This is important, given the “archaic” appearance of some of the fossil remains – for instance, from Kow Swamp. It should be noted, however, that ancient DNA analyses from early Australian Aboriginal remains have not yet been obtained or published. An adequate synthesis of the archaeogenetic evidence for Australia cannot be achieved until such time as they are.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Cambridge World Prehistory , pp. 561 - 565Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2014