The Aborignal Australian Y Chromosome Diverged 54,000 Years ago From South Asian

The first complete sequences of the Y chromosomes of Aboriginal Australian men have revealed a deep indigenous genetic history tracing all the way back to the initial settlement of the continent 50 thousand years ago, according to a study published in the journal Current Biology today (25th February 2016).

The study by researchers from the Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute and collaborators at La Trobe University in Melbourne and several other Australian institutes, challenges a previous theory that suggested an influx of people from India into Australia around 4-5 thousand years ago. This new DNA sequencing study focused on the Y chromosome, which is transmitted only from father to son, and found no support for such a prehistoric migration. The results instead show a long and independent genetic history in Australia.

Modern humans arrived in Australia about 50 thousand years ago, forming the ancestors of present-day Aboriginal Australians. They were amongst the earliest settlers outside Africa. They arrived in an ancient continent made up of today's Australia, Tasmania and New Guinea, called Sahul, probably thousands of years before modern humans arrived in Europe.

Five thousand years ago, dingos, the native dogs, somehow arrived in Australia, and changes in stone tool use and language around the same time raised the question of whether there were also associated genetic changes in the Australian Aboriginal population. At least two previous genetic studies, one of which was based on the Y chromosome, had proposed that these changes could have coincided with mixing of Aboriginal and Indian populations about 5 thousand years ago.

Anders Bergstrom, first author on the paper at the Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute, said: "We worked closely with Aboriginal Australian communities to sequence the Y chromosome DNA from 13 male volunteers to investigate their ancestry. The data show that Aboriginal Australian Y chromosomes are very distinct from Indian ones. These results refute the previous Y chromosome study, thus excluding this part of the puzzle as providing evidence for a prehistoric migration from India. Instead, the results are in agreement with the archaeological record about when people arrived in this part of the world."

Dr John Mitchell, Associate Professor at La Trobe University in Melbourne, explained: "Clearly there is keen interest in the Aboriginal community to explore their genetic ancestry and without them this study would not be possible - our first step was to return their results to them, before the scientific article was published. This collaboration in genome sequencing, to explore their ancient history, was made possible by years of engagement beforehand with Aboriginal communities."

Further study is needed to answer questions such as how the dingo did get to Australia and why other people such as the seafaring Polynesians didn't settle on the continent. Expanding the genetic analyses beyond the Y chromosome and to the whole genome will also be necessary to completely rule out external genetic influences on the Aboriginal Australian population before the very recent times.

link.

paper link.

How Much Did Aboriginal Fire Impact the Australian Environment Over the Last 20,000 Years?

Exploring the relationship between Aboriginal population indices and fire in Australia over the last 20,000 years

Authors:

Williams et al

Abstract:

The extent of prehistoric human impact on the environment is a contentious topic in various palaeo-environmental sciences. The long history of humans in Australia and its extensive fire-prone biota makes this continent a key research area for better characterization of prehistoric human–fire interactions. Here we use statistically robust cross-correlation of archaeological radiocarbon data (n = 4102 ages from 1616 sites) and a new synthesis of charcoal records (n = 155 sites) to test for any relationship between people and fire over the last 20,000 years at continental and regional (25–45°S) scales. We find that the statistical correlation between the two datasets is weak at both spatial scales, with short-lived synchronous responses only in the terminal Pleistocene–Holocene transition, at the onset of the mid-Holocene climatic optimum (~ 10–7 ka) and during significant transitions of El Niño Southern Oscillation (~ 5–4 ka and 1.2–0.8 ka). One interpretation of this is that Aboriginal populations were implementing ‘fire-stick farming’ only intermittently during periods of societal stress resulting from climatic variability. However, the synchronicity of the correlations with climate changes, along with the low populations through much of this time, suggests that both datasets were independently responding to external climatic forcing. Under either scenario, a lack of significant change in the charcoal record implies that there were no long-lasting impacts to the environmental biota, and macro-scale palaeoenvironmental records prior to European colonization largely reflect responses to non-human influences. While we do not discount the possibility of systematic or deliberate manipulation of fire regimes at local spatial scales, we conclude that human control of fire by prehistoric people in Australia is not evident at broad landscape levels. This conclusion contradicts persistent suggestions of Australian-wide land management and the pervasiveness of the impacts of ‘fire-stick farming’.