vix.ing · top · new · best · stats · spec

Revealing the prehistoric settlement of Australia by Y chromosome and mtDNA analysis

2007/05/11 by Georgi Hudjashov, Toomas Kivisild, Peter A. Underhill +8 · 7 citations
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology · Arts and Humanities · Earth and Planetary Sciences · #Forensic and Genetic Research #Forensic Anthropology and Bioarchaeology Studies #Archaeology and ancient environmental studies #Prehistory #Settlement (finance) #Mitochondrial DNA #Geography #Archaeology #Evolutionary biology #Genetics #Biology #Gene #Computer science

paper · doi:10.1073/pnas.0702928104

openalex publication_date 2007/05/11 · openalex created_date 2025/10/10 · openalex updated_date 2026/07/22

Abstract

Published and new samples of Aboriginal Australians and Melanesians were analyzed for mtDNA (n=172) and Y variation (n=522), and the resulting profiles were compared with the branches known so far within the global mtDNA and the Y chromosome tree. (i) All Australian lineages are confirmed to fall within the mitochondrial founder branches M and N and the Y chromosomal founders C and F, which are associated with the exodus of modern humans from Africa approximately 50-70,000 years ago. The analysis reveals no evidence for any archaic maternal or paternal lineages in Australians, despite some suggestively robust features in the Australian fossil record, thus weakening the argument for continuity with any earlier Homo erectus populations in Southeast Asia. (ii) The tree of complete mtDNA sequences shows that Aboriginal Australians are most closely related to the autochthonous populations of New Guinea/Melanesia, indicating that prehistoric Australia and New Guinea were occupied initially by one and the same Palaeolithic colonization event approximately 50,000 years ago, in agreement with current archaeological evidence. (iii) The deep mtDNA and Y chromosomal branching patterns between Australia and most other populations around the Indian Ocean point to a considerable isolation after the initial arrival. (iv) We detect only minor secondary gene flow into Australia, and this could have taken place before the land bridge between Australia and New Guinea was submerged approximately 8,000 years ago, thus calling into question that certain significant developments in later Australian prehistory (the emergence of a backed-blade lithic industry, and the linguistic dichotomy) were externally motivated.

Citations

Cited by