A different paradigm for the initial colonisation of Sahul

Abstract

The questions of when and how humans reached Sahul, the Pleistocene continent of Australia and New Guinea, has remained a central issue of Australian archaeology since its development as an academic discipline in the mid-twentieth century. Modelling this event has persistently appealed to minimal assumptions -the simplest watercraft, the shortest routes, the smallest viable colonising groups. This paper argues that Australian archaeology can no longer ignore the way our understanding of this initial colonisation is being reshaped by current genomic research. It reviews this evidence and concludes that a colonising wave of hundreds or perhaps low thousands of people was involved. If correct, it suggests that we need to rethink our models, modify or discard the minimalist assumptions that have so far driven them and consider how this different paradigm affects our understanding of early settlement in Sahul. RÉSUMÉ La question de savoir quand et comment les hommes ont atteint Sahul, le continent pléistocène regroupant l'Australie et laNouvelle-Guinée, persiste comme une problématique centrale de l'archéologie australienne depuis son essor en tant que discipline universitaire au milieu du vingtième siècle. La modélisation de cetévénement s'est appuyée de façon récurrente sur des présupposés minimalistes, impliquant les moyens de navigation les plus simples, les routes les plus courtes, les groupes de colonisation viable les plus restreints. Ce papier soutient que l'archéologie australienne ne peut plus ignorer combien notre compréhension de ce peuplement initial se trouve aujourd'hui redéfinie par la recherche génomique en cours. Il passe en revue les données et conclue que plusieurs centaines ou quelques milliers de personnes ont participéà cette vague de peuplement. Si cette hypothèse est correcte, elle implique que nous repensions nos modèles, que nous modifiions ou abandonnions les présupposés minimalistes qui ont jusqu'à présent défini ceux-ci et que nous analysions comment ce nouveau paradigme influence notre compréhension du premier peuplement de Sahul.

A different paradigm for the colonisation of Sahul

“…Recent mutation rate studies have also suggested significantly slower annual rates than previously estimated (Besenbacher et al . 2018; Scally 2016) which would consequently push back divergence dates such as those discussed by Allen and O'Connell (2020). While these rate studies are based on genome‐wide calculations, and not focused on mitochondrial DNA (Tobler et al .…”

“…Allen and O'Connell (2020) present a critique of minimalist assumptions, such as the favouring of shortest water crossings, in early human settlement models of Australia and New Guinea. While criticism of these assumptions is hardly new (Jones 1968), they nonetheless lie at the heart of most current discussion.…”

“…Allen and O'Connell (2020) not only offer a different paradigm for the colonisation of Sahul but also analyse the underlying rationale that has dominated this field for many years. They argue that explanations for the settlement of Sahul have generally invoked a minimalist view.…”

“…2018). In summary, although arguing convincingly against the minimalist approach, Allen and O'Connell (2020) appear to have fallen into their own trap when analysing the genetic data. Notwithstanding the widespread popularity of mitochondria data, their analyses are subject to a range of problems and inaccuracies that stem from the analysis of a single haploid genetic marker.…”

“…Gosling & Matisoo‐Smith 2018). Allen and O'Connell (2020: 5, 10) exhort archaeologists to engage with these data and the narratives written from them because of the bearing they have on long‐standing ideas about the settlement of Sahul. This exhortation presents archaeologists with a number of challenges, not the least of which is identifying the unique contribution they can make to the narratives of recent human history.…”