Discussions on the history and historiography of Australia's New England

Thursday, February 22, 2018

Papuans replace initial settlers in Oceania

Mark Lipson et al had an interesting paper, Population Turnover in Remote Oceania Shortly After Initial Settlement (bioRxiv preprint first posted online Feb. 19, 2018) on genetic mixtures in Oceania. The summary reads in part:
Ancient DNA analysis of three individuals dated to ~3000 years before present (BP) from Vanuatu and one ~2600 BP individual from Tonga has revealed that the first inhabitants of Remote Oceania (“First Remote Oceanians”) were almost entirely of East Asian ancestry, and thus their ancestors passed New Guinea, the Bismarck Archipelago, and the Solomon Islands with minimal admixture with the Papuan groups they encountered [1]. However, all present-day populations in Near and Remote Oceania harbor 25-100% Papuan ancestry, implying that there must have been at least one later stream of migration eastward from Near Oceania. 


Johnb said...

One thing that continues to intrigue me Jim is that none of the subsequent flows of Austronesian, Melanesians and Polynesians, all of whom were and remained successful navigators and colonisers, none showed up on the Australian continent. Occasional visits more than likely but no evidence for any settlement or colonisation. So far as we know the Australian Aboriginal are unique in their achievement to adapt and settle an entire continent.

Jim Belshaw said...

I think that it might have something to do with the winds, John, making southern travelling easier.

There has been debate about later colonisation connected with intensification. This included some DNA stuff suggesting South India linkages - http://newenglandhistory.blogspot.com.au/2013/02/history-revisited-dna-link-connects-us.html

Later DNA results cast some doubts on this DNA analysis, but I haven't seen any real analysis. The study in question appears to have vanished from analysis.

Johnb said...

I remember the conversation Jim and researches it as best I could coming to the conclusion it was more to do with Hindutva than Science.

Jim Belshaw said...

I think that that was a later post john in a different context. Looking back, I realised that I hadn't given links in that pots. Need to address that