Category Archives: Oceania

The human colonization of Australia and Near Melanesia

Continuing with the joint series of articles on the expansion of Homo sapiens, David Sánchez published last week an interesting piece[es] on the original colonization of Australia and Papua at Noticias de Prehistoria – Prehistoria al Día, which I’ll try to synthesize here.

Earliest evidences of human occupation of Australia and Near Melanesia (all before 30 Ka BP)

Maybe the most interesting detail is that Lake Mungo 3 has dates that clearly establish a colonization of the continent at least 60,000 years ago:

81.000 +- 21.000 U (Uranium series)
62.000 +- 6.000 ESR/U (Electron spin resonance/Uranium)
61.000 +- 2.000 OSL (Optical Stimulated luminiscence)
40.000 +- 2.000 OSL (Optical Stimulated luminiscence)

The sites of Nauwalbila I and Malakunanja II have provided similar dates: 60-50 Ka BP (OSL) and 61,000 BP +9,000/-13,000 (TL) respectively. So we can safely discard the conservative approach that only allowed for at most 50 Ka as earliest colonization boundary for the Oceanian continental landmass. 
The depiction of a Genyornis, giant duck-like bird extinct before 40 Ka, in Australian rock art ago also supports a very early date for the settlement of Australia. In Highland Papua human presence is also confirmed to at least 49 Ka ago, as I reported in 2010.
Naturally the settlers must have arrived by sea, the most commonly accepted candidate for such a vessel is a humble raft still used by some Papuan populations and which has parallels in Southern Asia (also still in use in some places):

Such a journey was attempted with a similar but larger raft, equipped with a simple sail named Nale Tasih 2. This craft had no trouble in reaching the continental platform of Australia from Timor in just six days and they actually managed to reach the modern Australian coast, although they desisted of beaching by night in the middle of a storm in an area infested by the largest crocodiles on Earth, being evacuated by the coastguard instead (the barge was later recovered in perfect state).

Australian Burrup Peninsula’s rock art is 30,000 years old

The open air engravings have managed to survive thanks to the extremely low erosion rates produced by the hardness of the rock combined with the local climate. 

The petroglyphs have been dated using the isotope beryllium-10. Based on current evidence, the archaeologists say, the occupation of the peninsula cannot be dated to before c. 42,000 years ago. 

Source: Australian Geographic.

Leave a comment

Posted by on April 22, 2013 in Australia, Oceania, rock art, Upper Paleolithic


Northern Marianas was first colonized from Philippines

Lapita pot from Tonga (source)
The first known colonists of Tinian (Northern Marianas) were people coming from Luzon and using a kind of red painted pottery which is also found in Northern Luzon, Philippines, similar to  Lapita (Island Melanesia, Polynesia).
However these people seem to have arrived to the Marianas a century or two before the Lapita carriers (precursors of Oceanic languages) reached Melanesia, according to Peter Bellwood.
Source and more details: Islands Business (interview with Bellwood), via Pileta.
See also:

Posted by on February 28, 2013 in archaeology, Neolithic, Oceania, sea


Submerged rock art from Papua

In the World-famous diving paradise of Raja Ampat, just West of the Bird’s Head peninsula of Papua (aka New Guinea), there is more than one of the greatest biodiversity areas of the planet. It has been found recently that off the shore of Misool, one of the major islands of the archipelago, there is also abundance of beautifully conserved Paleolithic murals.

The now submerged rock art is found in 13 different sites (so far), most of them sharing an intriguing pattern of location:
  • a large and rather high cliff;
  • a cavity, cave, overhang or hole around the foot of the cliff;
  • a main coloured (red-yellow to red-brown) wide strip pouring out, or reaching down to the cavity;
  • a (facultative) step-bank (coral or karst platform) at the foot. 
The art was obviously above the water level until the sea flooded all that area at the end of the Ice Age. 
Sources: World Archaeological Congress, Stone Pages’ Archaeonews.

Update (Feb 24): after being down for days, causing perplexity among some readers and myself, the WAC source site is up again. Exactly as it was four days ago. Just in case this time I’ll upload the images here. 

Leave a comment

Posted by on February 18, 2013 in Oceania, Paleolithic, Papua, rock art


Mitochondrial DNA haplogroup Q in Oceania

Even if a very specialized detail, this lineage may help to shed light on the colonization of Oceania:
Chris A. Corser et al., The Q2 Mitochondrial Haplogroup in Oceania. PLoS ONE 2012. Open accessLINK [ doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0052022]


Many details surrounding the origins of the peoples of Oceania remain to be resolved, and as a step towards this we report seven new complete mitochondrial genomes from the Q2a haplogroup, from Papua New Guinea, Fiji and Kiribati. This brings the total to eleven Q2 genomes now available. The Q haplogroup (that includes Q2) is an old and diverse lineage in Near Oceania, and is reasonably common; within our sample set of 430, 97 are of the Q haplogroup. However, only 8 are Q2, and we report 7 here. The tree with all complete Q genomes is proven to be minimal. The dating estimate for the origin of Q2 (around 35 Kya) reinforces the understanding that humans have been in Near Oceania for tens of thousands of years; nevertheless the Polynesian maternal haplogroups remain distinctive. A major focus now, with regard to Polynesian ancestry, is to address the differences and timing of the ‘Melanesian’ contribution to the maternal and paternal lineages as people moved further and further into Remote Oceania. Input from other fields such as anthropology, history and linguistics is required for a better understanding and interpretation of the genetic data.

Figure 2. Overview of the Q haplogroup.
The dataset has 36 mitochondrial genomes including all eight Q3 sequences, 17 Q1, three Q2 genomes from Friedlaender et al. [28], one from Hudjashov et al. [36],
together with the seven additional Q2a genomes reported here. The
network has been proved the shortest possible (the minimum number of
mutations) by using the techniques in Pierson et al. [40]. Differences in branching between the four equally parsimonious trees occur in the Q3 subgroup.

See also in this blog:


Posted by on December 21, 2012 in mtDNA, Oceania


High precision dating: first Polynesian settlement was in 2838±8 BP

That si Nukuleka, Tonga, and translates as 888±8 BCE (remember that BP means “before 1950”).

David Burley et al., High Precision U/Th Dating of First Polynesian Settlement. PLoS ONE 2012. Open access ··> LINK [doi]


Previous studies document Nukuleka in the Kingdom of Tonga as a founder
colony for first settlement of Polynesia by Lapita peoples. A limited
number of radiocarbon dates are one line of evidence supporting this
claim, but they cannot precisely establish when this event occurred, nor
can they afford a detailed chronology for sequent occupation. High
precision U/Th dates of Acropora coral files (abraders) from
Nukuleka give unprecedented resolution, identifying the founder event by
2838±8 BP and documenting site development over the ensuing 250 years.
The potential for dating error due to post depositional diagenetic
alteration of ancient corals at Nukuleka also is addressed through
sample preparation protocols and paired dates on spatially separated
samples for individual specimens. Acropora coral files are
widely distributed in Lapita sites across Oceania. U/Th dating of these
artifacts provides unparalleled opportunities for greater precision and
insight into the speed and timing of this final chapter in human
settlement of the globe.

Very handy after the recent endless circular discussions. Polynesians this? Polynesians that? Polynesians only since 890 BCE, not before! Earlier related cultures of Lapita were not yet Polynesians but generically Oceanic and mostly of Melanesian stock.
Importantly there are good reasons to consider Nukuleka as the founder site of Polynesia:
The status of Nukuleka as a founder colony is verified through four
lines of evidence. First, while limited, Nukuleka radiocarbon dates are
the earliest for any Lapita site in Polynesia (Table S1).
Second, decorated ceramics from Nukuleka incorporate an assemblage of
Lapita wares similar to those recovered from earlier Lapita sites in
island Melanesia to the west of Tonga. These are markedly different from
later Lapita ceramics in West Polynesia, and Nukuleka is the only site
in West Polynesia where these early ceramics occur [9].
Third, a subset of the ceramic assemblage with the earliest Lapita
designs is foreign to Tonga, based on petrographic analysis of ceramic
temper sands and sherd geochemistry [4].
These pots were transported from the ancestral homeland of the Nukuleka
colonizers, a homeland that has yet to be identified. And fourth, the
settlement at Nukuleka expanded over a 20 ha area on the Nukuleka
Peninsula during the 200–250 year period of Lapita occupation [9]. Nukuleka became a central place for Lapita peoples in West Polynesia as well as a gateway community for expanded settlement.

So it is very likely that the somewhat famed founder effects of Polynesians peoples (Y-DNA C2a and O3a2, mtDNA B4a1a1) were dominant already at this site in this date. However I must say that a second founder effect at nearby Samoa (not considered here), which has a much more similar Y-DNA to Eastern Polynesia, can be taken for granted also.

See also:


Posted by on November 16, 2012 in archaeology, Neolithic, Oceania


Hawaiian genetic study shows 2-1 Asian-Melanesian admixture in Polynesians

Queen Liliuokalani of Hawaii in her youth

Native Hawaiians still make up some 38% of the population of Hawaii but most of them have mixed ancestry nowadays. This new study may help to understand them better and also includes some interesting findings about the overall origins of Polynesians, whose Melanesian ancestry is revealed as very significant.

Sung K. Kim et al., Population Genetic Structure and Origins of Native Hawaiians in the Multiethnic Cohort Study. PLoS ONE 2012. Open access ··> LINK [doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0047881]


The population genetic structure of Native Hawaiians has yet to be comprehensively studied, and the ancestral origins of Polynesians remain in question. In this study, we utilized high-resolution genome-wide SNP data and mitochondrial genomes of 148 and 160 Native Hawaiians, respectively, to characterize their population structure of the nuclear and mitochondrial genomes, ancestral origins, and population expansion. Native Hawaiians, who self-reported full Native Hawaiian heritage, demonstrated 78% Native Hawaiian, 11.5% European, and 7.8% Asian ancestry with 99% belonging to the B4 mitochondrial haplogroup. The estimated proportions of Native Hawaiian ancestry for those who reported mixed ancestry (i.e. 75% and 50% Native Hawaiian heritage) were found to be consistent with their self-reported heritage. A significant proportion of Melanesian ancestry (mean = 32%) was estimated in 100% self-reported Native Hawaiians in an ADMIXTURE analysis of Asian, Melanesian, and Native Hawaiian populations of K = 2, where K denotes the number of ancestral populations. This notable proportion of Melanesian admixture supports the “Slow-Boat” model of migration of ancestral Polynesian populations from East Asia to the Pacific Islands. In addition, approximately 1,300 years ago a single, strong expansion of the Native Hawaiian population was estimated. By providing important insight into the underlying population structure of Native Hawaiians, this study lays the foundation for future genetic association studies of this U.S. minority population.

In my understanding, the most interesting elements from this study are the ADMIXTURE analyses:

Figure 1. ADMIXTURE clustering of Native Hawaiians for K = 5 (A) and K = 6 (B). Figures 1A and 1B illustrate the clustering of Native Hawaiians and HGDP samples based on GWAS data.

As the general Admixture analysis was not really conclusive about the Melanesian and Asian affinities of Native Hawaiians, the authors also performed a supervised K=2 analysis:

Figure 4. Supervised ADMIXTURE results for K = 2…
This appears to show rather unmistakably that Hawaiians (and by extension surely also other Polynesians, very close in genetics and history across the Pacific Ocean) have an important amount of Melanesian genetics, consistent with the “Slow Boat” model and the relevance of Melanesian Y-DNA haplogroup C2a among all Polynesian populations.

The genetic and phenotype complexity of the Oceanic language area

In this entry, rather than discussing Polynesians alone, which seem to be just the tip of the Eastern Austronesian iceberg, I’ll try to understand here the complexity of speakers of Oceanic languages, the main native language family of Island Oceania. 
Oceanic is a branch of Austronesian but for the purposes of this entry we will only mention other Austronesian peoples/languages tangentially. The focus is Oceanic because we can’t understand the parts without the whole here most probably. 


Oceanic languages are scattered as follows:

  Admiralties and Yapese
  St Matthias
  Western Oceanic and Meso-Melanesian (two distinct sub-families)
  Southeast Solomons
  Southern Oceanic
Black enclosed zones are pockets of languages from other families.
(CC by kwami)

It is certainly interesting that Micronesian and Fijian-Polynesian seem to be particularly related among them. Instead the Western Oceanic and Admiralty subfamilies (both from the islands near Papua) seem to have separated early on or diverged farther for whatever other reasons (stronger substrate influence for example).


Lapita pot from Tonga (source)
As I cited recently, Polynesians seem to have spread from Society Islands in the 1190-1290 CE window. The genesis of the Micronesian family is not well understood… but the overall genesis of Oceanic languages seems to be at the Lapita culture, which spread through Island Melanesia (excluding Papua) and some nearby islands (notably Tonga and Samoa also Marquesas c. 300 CE(ref)).
Early Lapita culture is dated to c. 1350-750 BCE, while a Late phase is dated to c. 250 BCE, spreading to the Solomon Islands, which show no indications of the earlier period (Ricaut 2010, fig. 2).
So a simplified chronology for Oceanic expansion would be
  1. Lapita culture from near Melanesia to Vanuatu and Kanaky (New Caledonia), then to:
    1. Fiji, Samoa and Tonga since c. 900 BCE
    2. Solomon Is. c. 250 BCE
  2. Arrival to Society Islands (Tahiti, etc.) c. 300-800 CE from maybe Samoa.
  3. Main Polynesian expansion to the farthest islands (Hawaii, Rapa Nui, Aotearoa-NZ) c. 1200 CE from Society Is.

Phenotype (‘race’)

A classical and unavoidable element in the ethnographic division of the region is phenotype, appearance (i.e. ‘race’). Since the first European arrival to the area the division between black Melanesians and white Polynesians (very relative as we will see now) has been part of all our conceptualizations of the region. 
Conscious of that and wanting to get a better impression I collected from the Internet what I estimate may be representative faces from the Oceanic linguistic zone and nearby areas (other Austronesians and Melanesians) and put them on a map:

Click to expand

A relatively homogeneous Polynesian phenotype can be identified and one can imagine that it stems from the area of Samoa-Tonga, considering the previous prehistorical review. But otherwise the diversity, gradations and abundance of local uniqueness seems quite impressive.
Based on other cases, one would imagine also that phenotype differences would be coincidental with genetic ones. However this is not too easy to discern, partly because Polynesians have strong founder effects that blur the matter, partly because there is no obvious strict dividing line between the various phenotypes and partly because of the insistence of some in considering Lapita as a Polynesian phenomenon, when it is obviously an Oceanic one, including and emphasizing the Melanesian side of the diverse Oceanic landscape, of which the Polynesian-Micronesian branch is just one element (famous and extended but not the core). 
The main Y-DNA lineage among Polynesians is C2a1 (P33), not found outside Polynesia senso stricto but reaching there frequencies of 63-90% (excepted Tonga where it’s only 33%). This is a clear founder effect in this population.

C subclades in SE Asia and Oceania
(from Karafet 2010, annotated with ISOGG nomenclature)
C2a1 is clearly derived from a Melanesian superset C2a (M208) still found as C2a(xC2a1) at low frequencies in Samoa (8%) and Tahiti (4%) but also in Vanuatu (2%) and coastal Papua (13%). C2a establishes a probably genetic link of Polynesians with Lapita culture and Melanesian peoples in general.
An earlier pylogenetic stage is C2 (M38), which is probably in the region since the very first colonization process some 50 thousand years ago (or maybe even earlier). C2(xC2a) is most common in Wallacea (East Indonesia, East Timor), where it reaches maybe figures of 33% on average. It is however also found in highland Papua (13%) and Vanuatu (20%) but as it is most doubtful that C2a evolved as recently as Lapita times, we should really focus on C2a as such rather than the wider C2, which only seems to confuse the matter.
The lack of C2(xC2a) in most of the Oceanic languages’ area clearly indicates that the expansion (and subsequent founder effects) did not begin in Wallacea but in  Melanesia, at least in what regards to C sublineages.
The other major Polynesian haplogroup is O3a2 (P201), which would seem to have originated in Philippines and maybe arrived there via Micronesia:

O3 subclades in SE Asia and Oceania
(from Karafet 2010, annotated with ISOGG nomenclature)

Melanesian populations also sport some lineages that are not common among other Oceanic-speaker peoples, notably K, M and S. However they are irregularly shared with Wallacea (Eastern Indonesia, East Timor). Like C2 these lineages coalesced in the region soon after colonization by Homo sapiens.
In the motherly side of things genetic, the absolutely dominant mtDNA lineage among Polynesians (the so-called Polynesian motif) is B4a1a1, which ultimately stems from East or rather SE Asia. However it probably arrived to the region (again) via Melanesia, albeit maybe somewhat tangentially.

From Friedlander 2007 (fig. 4)

Spatial frequency distribution of haplogroup B4a* and B4a1a1 in Island Southeast Asia and the western Pacific, created using the Kriging algorithm of the Surfer package of haplogroups. Figure 4b presents the detailed distribution for Northern Island Melanesia. Data details are provided in table S3.

The matrilineal Polynesian motif does offer a possible pattern of settlement, maybe related specifically to Late Lapita, that could allow us to understand the possible origin of the phenotype differences between Melanesians and Polynesians, as could do the Y-DNA lineage O3a2. However there are lots of remnants of quite strictly Melanesian Early Lapita, as is evident by the (Y-DNA) C2a lineages retained so strongly among Polynesians within their own founder effects, whose importance we cannot afford to dismiss.

Other mtDNA lineages like Q1 or M27 are of relevance in Melanesian populations. Q1 did make its way into some Polynesian populations but as minority lineage only.

Update (Oct 31):

Terry in the comments sections grunts a lot but now and then provides useful complementary data, for example this Y-DNA map of the region from Kayser 2006:

Kayser 2006 – fig. 1
Frequency distribution of (A, B) NRY and (C, D) mtDNA haplogroups found in Polynesia with a genetic origin in (A, C) Asia or (B, D) Melanesia.

As is apparent since Kayser’s publication (if not before), the Melanesian patrilineages are much more common (actually dominant) among Polynesians than the matrilineages from the same origin, what is attributable to a founder effect related to the Lapita culture.
Another interesting reference is this Y-DNA map of Papua (New Guinea) and some nearby islands (from Mona 2007):

Mona 2007 FIG. 2.—Y-chromosome haplogroups and their frequencies in populations from the Bird’s Head region and elsewhere in New Guinea. Data from other populations of New Guinea were used from previous studies (Kayser et al. 2003, 2006). Size of the pie charts is according to sample size of the groups. Abbreviations are as in supplementary table S1, Supplementary Material online.

Both maps and/or the data in the relevant papers provide key information on possible origins for the C2a-M208 patrilineal founder effect, so important in general in the Oceanic peoples and specially the Polynesian branch. The exact origin cannot be pinpointed without further research (or maybe not at all) but it’s clear that C2a-M208 only exists from Papua (New Guinea) to the East, so it must have a Melanesian origin be it Papuan or from the nearby islands.


  • François-Xavier Ricaut et al., Ancient Solomon Islands mtDNA: assessing Holocene settlement and the impact of European contact. Journal of Archaeological Science, 2010 ··> LINK (PDF).
  • Jonathan S. Friedlaender et al., Melanesian mtDNA Complexity. PLoS ONE, 2007 ··> LINK (open access).
  • Tatiana Karafet et al., Major East-West Division Underlies Y Chromosome Stratification Across Indonesia. MBE 2010 ··> LINK (free access).
  • Michael Knapp et al., Complete mitochondrial DNA genome sequences from the first New Zealanders. PNAS 2012 ··> LINK (open access).
  • Manfred Kayser et al., Melanesian and Asian Origins of Polynesians: mtDNA and Y Chromosome Gradients Across the Pacific. MBE 2006 ··> LINK (free access).
  • Stephano Mona et al., Patterns of Y-Chromosome Diversity Intersect with the Trans-New Guinea Hypothesis. MBE 2007 ··> LINK (free access).

Note: updates after first posted version in maroon color.


Ancient Maori mtDNA

Terry points me to this paper:
Michael Knapp et al., Complete mitochondrial DNA genome sequences from the first New Zealanders. PNAS 2012. Open access ··> LINK [doi:]


The dispersal of modern humans across the globe began ∼65,000 y ago when people first left Africa and culminated with the settlement of East Polynesia, which occurred in the last 1,000 y. With the arrival of Polynesian canoes only 750 y ago, Aotearoa/New Zealand became the last major landmass to be permanently settled by humans. We present here complete mitochondrial genome sequences of the likely founding population of Aotearoa/New Zealand recovered from the archaeological site of Wairau Bar. These data represent complete mitochondrial genome sequences from ancient Polynesian voyagers and provide insights into the genetic diversity of human populations in the Pacific at the time of the settlement of East Polynesia.

The authors sequenced ancient mtDNA from the pre-colonial period from a museum material being returned for proper reburial. The remains belong to a population from Wairau Bar from the 13th-14th centuries, which were looted by British museums in the mid 20th century. 
Of the 19 individuals researched, only four provided valid sequences. All four Three were within the so-called Polynesian motif or haplogroup B4a1a1a, the other was Q1, a lineage of Melanesian origin also found, albeit rarely, among other Polynesians. All modern studied Maoris are B4a1a1a but Q1 is known to exist among Cook Islanders, for example. (Corrected: Q1 is mentioned but in the context of other Polynesian populations, not New Zealand).

Interestingly the authors also explain that the colonization of Eastern Polynesia was performed not in a series of small randomized migrations but in a single expansive wave in the 12th-13th centuries CE, what explains the relative homogeneity of their customs and languages. 

A recent reevaluation of the dates for the colonization of East Polynesia suggests that, contrary to earlier studies positing a relatively long (2,000 y) chronology for the region, the settlement of most of East Polynesia occurred rapidly, in the period from A.D. ∼1190–1290 (22). The authors determined that the expansion event occurred from the Society Islands, which were only settled 70–265 y previously. This rapid and recent expansion event, they argue, explains the “remarkable uniformity of East Polynesian culture, human biology and language” (22).

The cited reference (22) is:

Wilmshurst JM, Hunt TL, Lipo CP, Anderson AJ (2011) High-precision radiocarbon dating shows recent and rapid initial human colonization of East Polynesia. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 108(5):1815–1820.


Posted by on October 24, 2012 in aDNA, mtDNA, New Zealand, Oceania, Polynesians


Ancient DNA… of chickens

Sure, why not?
Alice A. Storey, Investigating the Global Dispersal of Chickens in Prehistory Using Ancient Mitochondrial DNA Signatures. PLoS ONE, 2012. Open access ··> LINK [DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0039171]
The authors managed to produce more or less reliable mtDNA haplotypes for 48 remains of historical and prehistorical chickens from Thailand, Pacific Islands, Latin America (a pre-Columbian site in Chile but post-Columbian sites elsewhere) and (medieval) Spain.
Excepting the oldest Thai haplotype, all them belonged to haplogroups D and E, as follows:

Fig. 1
In spite of the authors burying most of the relevant data in the supplemental material, I was able to conclude that the ancient haplotypes (ah) above mean in terms of samples:
  • Haplogroup E:
    • cluster 1:
      • ah1 Pacific Is. (n=1)
      • ah2 Pacific Is. (n=4), Thailand (n=1), Chile (n=1)
      • ah6 Peru (n=1)
    • cluster 2:
      • ah3 Pacific Is. (n=10), Chile (n=2), Spain (n=3), Haiti (n=1), Florida (n=1)
      • ah4 Spain (n=1)
      • ah5 Bolivia (n=3)
      • ah7 Spain (n=1)
  • Haplogroup D:
      • ah9 Pacific Is. (n=1), Peru (n=1)
    • cluster 3:
      • ah10 Pacific Is. (n=14)
      • ah11 Pacific Is. (n=1)
  • Haplogroup B (not shown):
      • ah12 Thailand (n=1)
There is no ah8 apparently. 
It must be noted that the ah9 haplotype from Peru is very early post-Columbian, from before 1600 CE, making it another likely evidence of Polynesian introduction of chicken in South America, along with the Chilean sites (which allow for no other explanation). However the Peruvian haplotype is more related to Micronesia than to Hawaii or Rapa Nui.
Other 17th century samples from Bolivia and Peru (ah5 and ah6) have no obvious connection with either plausible origin. Instead Caribbean sites are probably related to Spain.
A simplified geographical distribution is also offered (oddly enough on a pre-WWI map):

Fig. 2

The authors conclude:
As a result of the careful analysis of archaeologically associated, and
in some cases directly dated, ancient DNA samples an early global
distribution of haplogroup E chickens has been revealed. This dispersal
out of Asia began before 3000 years ago and involved the movement of
chickens both westwards to Europe and eastwards into the Pacific. The
distribution of haplogroup D likely represents a separate dispersal into
the Pacific from a distinct Asian domestication centre. The eventual
identification of these centers will greatly enrich our understanding of
chicken domestication and the history of dispersals from multiple
locations. While unambiguous data does not yet exist to trace any of the
detected mtDNA signatures back to specific domestication centers, the
analysis of ancient DNA sequences presented here is an important first
step towards it. Future research needs to focus on markers identified,
from both full mtDNA genomes and nuclear genes which are subsequently
targeted in ancient specimens, examined within their historical and/or
archaeological context.

Posted by on July 26, 2012 in aDNA, America, chicken DNA, mtDNA, Neolithic, Oceania, SE Asia