New Guinean children: The founding group leaving Africa 50,000 to 70,000 years ago may have had similar physical features, which were then lost elsewhere, say researchers. The new analysis shows that aboriginal Australians and New Guineans share a common ancestry. Credit: Peter Forster
SYDNEY: Australian Aborigines descend from the same lineage as the first modern humans to migrate from Africa, DNA analysis has confirmed. The find is a further blow to the idea that the evolution of indigenous Australians was marked by many migrations from Asia.
“We wanted to know whether the same ‘Out-of-Africa’ migration that was responsible for founding the gene pools of Eurasia was also the basis for Australia’s population… or were there several separate migrations?” said study co-author and evolutionary biologist Toomas Kivisild, of the University of Cambridge in England.
The Out-of-Africa theory argues that modern humans evolved in Africa 100,000 to 200,000 years ago and one group migrated out to the rest of the world between 50,000 and 70,000 years ago, replacing – and not mixing with – ancient homo populations already there.
Alternative scenarios
Though many anthropologists accepted that Australia’s native population arrived in a single wave 50,000 or so years ago, alternative migration scenarios have been proposed to explain confusing features in the aboriginal fossil record. For example, some experts argue that unusually small and less robust skulls compared to thicker later skulls found among early human remains found in Australia, are inconsistent with an Australian population that had been isolated since its inception.
In order to resolve these questions, lead author Georgi Hudjashov, of the University of Tartu in Estonia, and colleagues compared the DNA of living indigenous Australians in Kalumburu, Western Australia with DNA from people in New Guinea and around the Indian Ocean.
As a kind of belt and braces approach, the team followed both maternal and paternal lineages by analysing mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) and Y chromosome DNA respectively. MtDNA is used as a record of the maternal line of descent, as it only passes from mothers to daughters in their eggs. Likewise DNA on the Y chromosome is present only in males, so it can be used to trace our paternal lineages.
“Integrating the Y and mtDNA data is a good approach, as usually research teams rely on only the maternal, or paternal, evidence,” commented Peter Brown, a palaeoanthropologist with the University of New England in Armidale, Australia.
Little gene flow
Their analysis showed that DNA from people in New Guinea and aboriginal Australians could be traced back to early branches of the human phylogenetic tree, associated with the first humans to leave Africa 50,000 – 70,000 years ago. The study is revealed today in the U.S. journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
The DNA analysis also revealed very little gene flow into Australia and New Guinea in the 50,000 or so years since the initial migration. Australians evolved in relative isolation compared to other parts of the Indian Ocean, which were subject to much more genetic mixing, said the study authors. This in turn suggests that developments in language and tool use were not influenced by outside sources, they said.
Not everyone agrees about the proposed extent of differences in Aboriginal fossils anyway. “The variability amongst Australian fossils tends to be exaggerated,” commented David Bulbeck from Australian National University’s School of Archaeology and Anthropology in Canberra. He argues that differences can be explained by climate and it’s effect on physiology, rather than a series of migrations from Asia.
According to palaeoanthropologist Mike Morwood, also of the University of New England in Armidale, the paper confirms what many experts already believed – “that modern humans first appeared in Africa around 200,000 years ago, and that they dispersed out of Africa.”
Please leave a comment
Please comply with our Community rules.
The DNA study can only be described as incredibly inept if samples were only taken from NW WA. There were (and are) very significant physical differences between people of Tasmania, the mainland and Bathurst and Melville Islands Tiwi).
And even on the mainland, Wardeye, NE Arnhemland and Groote Eylandt are similar, compared to Central Australian and western clans.
Can’t someone do the job properly and take large samples from at least the clearly representative regions; taking into account that the remnants of Tasmanian people include many whose claims are suspect, to say the least.
Tony Ryan
Since watching Alex Haley’s TV series ”Routes” many years ago, I have been pondering a question. In the series, the words ‘Camba Bilonga’ are repeated through the generations,to remind them of where they came from.The word Bilonga apparently means a river or water course, in Mali,Africa. In Ausralia, the word for a pool or a stream is Billabong.Are these words to similar to be a coincidence? Or did the aborigines leave Africa with language?
One day I hope there will be an answer to this question before it drives me insane.
Yours,
Steve Edge.
Somerset U.K.
“Camba Bilonga” sounds like pidgin (like “lan bilonga mi” = “my land”). The word billabong is a transliteration by early English-speaking settlers of the word of just one aboriginal group’s word. I think you can safely rest-assured that even if bilonga is a word for a river in a modern language in Mali, the chances of it being at all related to billabong are effectively zero. Just a random orthographical coincidence.
Alex Haley’s book and the TV series was named “ROOTS” not Routes.
OK.. so this article basically claims/asserts a LOT, but demonstrates/offers nothing substantive..
the Australian native population Mtdna/Y-dna is referred to but never once mentioned as to what Hg’s they fall into.
If they are ‘out of africa’ as the article claims, then they should have ample evidence of of these populations sharing the african Y-dna Hg’s of ‘E’ and ‘A’, along with the african maternal ”SUPER” Hg of ‘L’.
From what I have heard, the natives of australia dont share either african maternal or paternal DNA Hg’s… they actually share the southeast asian and pacific islanders Hg’s..
so what is the deal here..? This article claims a DNA Hg match, never reveals what the Hg groups ARE that supposedly match, and all the while we have Hg studies indenpendently that show no correlation between african and australian native DNA Hg’s…
This is either a really poorly researched assumption or its a assertion being made IN SPITE of its full disprovability.
I have always belived that the aborigines desended some how from africa. All of the other articles that I have come across discuss how aborigines came from southeast asia. I always thought the features of aborigines were closely connected with those of ‘black’ or african people. I myself am black and my grandmother truly resembled an aboriginal person but she didnt know much about her parents just that her father spoke ‘funny’. Since she passed on Ive been interested in uncovering my ancestry.
In Australia the furthest settlement of Aboriginals is in Tasmania. If DNA testing was done to random selection of Aborigines from Tasmania, Victoria and southern NSW scientist could find the missing link of the ‘Out of Africa’ theory which suggest Aboriginals came from Africa. If the DNA does not match those of Africa it will clearly suggest Australian Aboriginals DNA is infact an ancient origin which all of europe and south east asia share. The term suggesting that Aboriginal DNA is of south east asian origin is found only from the northern parts of Australia and were the only ones DNA tested. The key link here is that if you want to find the true ancient origins of Aborigines in Australia, DNA testing has to be done on the most southern types of Aborigines in Australia including: Tasmania, Victoria and Southern NSW to find the ancestral DNA that is shared with the early Africans that descended from Africa to survive on the most arid contintent in the world. In Tasmania the Ancestral Aborigines had made there mark there over 40000 yrs ago and to trace there DNA would suggest that there is a linkage between them and the Ancient Africans or a unidentified homo- species which lived/survived on the Australian continent before the invasion of the mixed South East Asian homo species.
Nick Sydney NSW
God Bless you,
I was just thinking the same thing. I can clearly see there is a distinct Genetic difference between NG ans and Some groups of “Aborigines” Who even at a glance, one can see some probably share genetic ties to INDIA and some to SE Asians as a DISTANT inheritance. I may not be as educated on the subject, but I am smart enough to understand that these so called studies by “scientists” are so broad, and un-thorough that the results should not even be published. what a joke. Well spoken Sir, and do we always have to be left wanting by these ridiculously loose investigations?
So you clearly see there is a distinct genetic difference. How different? To what extent? What do you propose here? That there is NO close tie to Africa who some Aborigines at a “GLANCE” PROBABLY share genetic ties to INDIA? And what of India, too. No way, right? There can’t be. Why? Based on your observation. Some differences you pinpointed. What do you find similar? Nothing right? And why is that so? Would it make more sense to hear something else? What would it be? Does the argument disappear if this article was about sharing Asian DNA? Why would it? Would this be more in alignment with your thinking? When did you last question the distinct genetic difference in the English and Germans.
In 2006 Kalumburu had a population of 413 people. The article never specified how many of these people were examined. To derive definitive conclusions (as both the scientists and magazine have done so) using such a small sample size population in such a specific geographical area on a migration event that occurred 50,000 years or so ago – something like 2000 generations! – makes them next to meaningless. To extend any conclusions about the whole aboriginal race/s or to use it to debunk alternative successive migration hypotheses is bad science and bad journalism.
The only sensible conclusion to draw from the article is to not expect much from Cosmos magazine.
There is a difference between ‘their’and ‘there’ used in the correct sense makes an article make sense.
As a retired scientist, I cannot disagree with the 26 Mar 11 Visitor’s statement that one should not expect much from Cosmos magazine. Such articles are written by journalists/non-scientists. Invariably, when the interviewed scientist reads such an article about his/her work, the response is always the same: “OMG, that’s not what I said! It’s not even close to what I said!”
So, the point is, those who tore the research study apart based on a Cosmos article were pretty much wasting their time. Where is the truth? In the PNAS article. Read it before launching into a tirade. There you will find, for example, that Hudjashov et al did sample several dozen aborigines from around Kalumburu and also a group in PNG. However, for their analyses, they incorporated previously determined mtDNA and Y DNA sequences from hundreds and even thousands of aborigines, New Guineans, Melanesians, and even Indians.
Remember: the truth is in a peer-reviewed article published by a prestigious journal like PNAS. What you read in the popular press ( or on the internet for Pete’s sake) most likely will have only a passing resemblance to the facts.
yes, you are right – but more importantly – did you “get the drift”?
Why is it that the poor ole journo seems to get it in the neck for always reporting what people actually said? There seems to be a radical difference between what people actually say, and what they really want others to believe they said, and they want the journo to turn their verbal garbage into something that it isn’t. Aren’t facts in accordance with someone’s belief structure, and isn’t evidence narrow focussed to support that belief? I’m pleased I have stumble on cosmos mag. I’m pleased with the similarity of evidence from certain studies that have been carried out, and the slight disparity between them. Through these discussions I am linking my own Polynesian/Maori heritage to the world family of Indigenous languages and cultures. Well done to the journo/s who took a major piece of someone elses fantastic work and crunched it down to a palatable 250 words for my consumption – and left enough room for me to want just a little bit more…. and that’s a fact!!!
It seems that all scientists have a theory and work towards that outcome, that isnt science, Study on this issue has been happening since the dutch first came here in the late 1600. most of the science that modern scientists base their study on was done during the 1700′s and the 1800′s by people sitting in euroupe that took all thier information from non scientific descriptions by settlers. A simple question, why dont Aboriginals have direct DNA links to SE Asia, and why isnt thier any pysical evidence of modern humans of similar dates in asia. The north west of Australia have been trading with the Maccasans (Asians) since the 1300′s or 1400′s that would explain the Asian mix also the Japanese settled Broome area for the pearling industry around 200 years ago. All dating in Australia is resticted by the accuracy of dating technologys and its limits of range, until technology get better and more accurate we can only guess as all the scientist are because no one knows
just to clear things up. Its 20,000 generations not 2000. Worth noting
First this is worse than Climate science and has zero credibility. Second the testing strategy and conclusions are beyond belief. I personally believe the out of Africa theory but not so sure on no interbreeding with earlier humans. The dna testing is at best suspect and at best rubbish the idea that these clowns can conclude that there was a single migration 50k years ago is rubbish its based on nothing more than faith, might as well have concluded that the Australian Aboriginals where created by God in place. First they have to assume that there is no recombination of mitochondria that is clearly been shown to be suspect and secondly they have to know mutation rates which frankly they dont.
The external evidence is that Dingos arrived in Australia 4,000 years ago and I bet that is when they arrived
There are distinct similarities between the australian aboriginees and people from south india. Look at the features of an australian aboriginee and you will find distinct similarities with that of a native tamil, kerala or sri lankan. In fact aboriginees are less african in nature quite like the south indian (dravidian race)…who do not have any african roots whatsoever. The only similarity between the african race, the autralian aboriginee and south indians is complexion. However the features of an aboriginee and south indian is closely similar, the african features are completely different. As far as the ‘hair’ is concerned, the aboriginee hair is more african in nature. However, the aboriginee features are south indian in nature. On the other hand, south indian hair structures are different, they are straighter and similar to other non-african races. So my hypothesis is that the aborinee could well be a fusion of south indian and african. I am confident and can almost assure that this hypothesis is 90% accurate.
It is all conjecture at this point, the scientists will have to resolve the blood types and RH Pos-Neg of the worlds people before thes claims can be made!
Are people willing to consider that modern life evolved from Australia or is it that we are unable to entertain such notions as result of humility? ie. Such notions may make lots of people look stupid.
There could be interesting comparisons made between Aboriginal tribal symbology and early sumerian text not to mention the comparisons made with ancient Greek, African and Aribic languages that share alot of words with and seem to derive from Australian Aboriginal languages.
Thanks for that reply! Since I read ROUTES, my brain’s been going inside out LOL!
We all have a distorted view on the phenotypes of Africans.
The popular belief is African have flat nose, woolly hair, and black skin, and thick lips. This was a definition given to Africans by their British conquerors, which had no basis other than what they thought. But, Africans never described themselves this way. They come in all different shades, facial features, sizes, and hair textures varies. Even Herodotus, when he visited Africa in the 5th Century B.C. said, East Ethiopians have Straight hair, and West Ethiopians have Woolly hair. He also said the color of Ethiopians is the same as the Indians (reddish brown). And, that Egyptians and Colchians had black skin. This shows a variety of different shades found in Africa. Which proves Africans cannot be defined with a few features. Otherwise, many Africans would not classify as Africans, especially within the same family. For example, two African parents could look like the stereotypical British looking African, but have children 3 shades lighter, with straighter hair, and slender features. This happens all of the time. So, does this mean their children are not Africans? According to the British, they weren’t. During the 18-1900′s they told Africans with different features they were Caucasoid and came from Europe. Do you know what impact this have on Africa today. WAR !!!! Millions are killing each other because they believe one group of Africans are indigenous and the others are not, despite the DNA tests proven both sets of phenotypes are indigenous to AFRICA (based on mt-DNA, and Y-DNA).
But, their views of what African should look like have been corrupted by the opinions of the European Colonists. We have to stop putting ignorant boundaries on race and realize it is something made up by MAN not NATURE.
By the way, all Asians do not have yellow skin and have slanted eyes. The Asians in Cambodia and other countries proves this. Some are brown with woolly hair, flat nose, and thick lips, but they are Asians. Some Asians are light skinned, long nose, and thin lips. It’s called variation within the gene pool. Africans are just as diverse as Asians, from the 7 foot Kenyans, with Brown skin and curly and straight hair, to the Ugandans who are the Blackest and most Beautiful Africans Alive today, to the 4 feet pygmies, with woolly and straight blond hair– ALL AFRICANS.
No one knows all phenotypes indigenous to Africa, or Asia, or Europe, because their are no pictures of what they looked like. So, its all speculation no facts. Even before Egypt established their civilization, man had been traveling out of Africa into Asia, into Europe, and back to Africa and interbreeding along the way for thousands of years before the British came with their opinion. There is no way to prove what the phenotypes indigenous to Africa or any continent for that matter. No one KNOWS.
lol boys
Trace the cyanobacteria of Tasmania back and you will find the first living specie of man…The atmospheric condition at one time had to be concentrated for the develop of humanity…At one time the land mass of earth was one and the oxygen was higher and growth was abundant…weeds at 30 feet Animals at 60 tons….you can find yesterday by forgetting today…comparing will get you no where
Can you see the big picture? The study shows that aboriginal people went out from Africa in the same wave that gave origin to all the people of the world, including you and me, Germans, British, Asians, Americans (natives). While we were traditionslly used to see each other as aliens, our genetic heritage shows us how closely related we are.
I have been reading on the internet recently, apparently there was an advanced ethiopian society/empire – or whatever you want to call it, that is likely to have given rise to ancient egypt, & was known to have spread right round the indian ocean, from modern day ethiopia, through to india & right arond to australia. The ancient greeks write of this – they called the whole area ethiopia, like it was all one people at one stage. & comparisomes show a physical resemblance, albeit with some modern evolutionary differences, in all these people, more so than with any other people anyway. Worth a bit more researching I think, if you’re interesed in that.
I found this recent article about studies of the genetic connection between Australian aboriginal people and Indians. Its worth a read – http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2009/07/24/2635149.htm
Leave a Reply