Genomic evidence supports the "long chronology" for the peopling of Sahul
Gandini FPapers in this archive, Almeida MPapers in this archive, Foody MGBPapers in this archive, Nagle NPapers in this archive, Bergström APapers in this archive, Olivieri APapers in this archive, Rodrigues SPapers in this archive, Fichera APapers in this archive, Oteo-Garcia GPapers in this archive, Torroni APapers in this archive, Achilli APapers in this archive, Pomat WPapers in this archive, Zainuddin ZPapers in this archive, Eng KKPapers in this archive, Shoeib TPapers in this archive, Rito TPapers in this archive, Bulbeck DPapers in this archive, O'Connor SPapers in this archive, Bryk JPapers in this archive, Pala MPapers in this archive, Grant MJPapers in this archive, Edwards CJPapers in this archive, Oppenheimer SJPapers in this archive, Mitchell RJPapers in this archive, Soares PAPapers in this archive, Farr HPapers in this archive, Richards MBPapers in this archive
Abstract
The timing of the settlement of Sahul—the Pleistocene landmass formed by present-day New Guinea, Australia, and Tasmania that existed until ~9000 years ago (~9 ka)—remains highly contentious. The so-called “long chronology” posits the first main arrivals at ~60 to 65 ka, whereas a “short chronology” proposes 47 to 51 ka. Here, we exhaustively analyze an unprecedentedly large mitogenome dataset (n = 2456) encompassing the full range of diversity from the indigenous populations of Australia, New Guinea, and Oceania, including a lineage related to those of New Guinea in an archaeological sample from Wallacea. We assess these lineages in the context of variation from Southeast Asia and a reevaluation of the mitogenome mutation rate, alongside genome-wide and Y-chromosome variation, and archaeological and climatological evidence. In contrast to recent recombinational dating approaches, we find support for the long chronology, suggesting settlement by ~60 ka via at least two distinct routes into Sahul.
This page indexes the study's public bibliographic record. The full text belongs to the journal; follow the DOI above to read it at the source.