1stellarexplorer
A new study of ancient dingo DNA adds to our understanding of dingo origins.
From a Smithsonian Mag article on the study:
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/ancient-dna-unravels-the-mysteries-of-...
“Their analysis constructed thousands of years of dingo population history—and helped answer several questions. For one, the study suggests modern dingoes do not interbreed with domestic dogs, contrary to what has long been assumed. Today’s dingoes share much of their DNA with their ancient ancestors—and very little with domestic dogs.
Ancient DNA also revealed that dingoes arrived in Australia between 3,000 and 8,000 years ago, likely on boats with traders in the Pacific. And the way they arrived could explain the geographic distribution of dingoes today.”
Link to the study itself in PNAS:
https://www.pnas.org/doi/abs/10.1073/pnas.2407584121
From a Smithsonian Mag article on the study:
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/ancient-dna-unravels-the-mysteries-of-...
“Their analysis constructed thousands of years of dingo population history—and helped answer several questions. For one, the study suggests modern dingoes do not interbreed with domestic dogs, contrary to what has long been assumed. Today’s dingoes share much of their DNA with their ancient ancestors—and very little with domestic dogs.
Ancient DNA also revealed that dingoes arrived in Australia between 3,000 and 8,000 years ago, likely on boats with traders in the Pacific. And the way they arrived could explain the geographic distribution of dingoes today.”
Link to the study itself in PNAS:
https://www.pnas.org/doi/abs/10.1073/pnas.2407584121
2haydninvienna
>1 stellarexplorer: Thanks for that — fascinating. The traders: wonder who they were? Polynesians? Asians of some sort? Two different groups, to account for the distinct populations? The link gives access only to the abstract, but I'd love to know more (not enough to spring US$10 though). But material there for some sort of history of trading and migration around the south-western Pacific thousands of years ago. I wonder what there is in the libraries?
3stellarexplorer
>2 haydninvienna: Thanks - I agree on the paywall. While PNAS ought to be completely Open Access - after all, it’s the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA. Citizens at the very least should be able to read the material for free. Their nod to this truth is to make all articles free within six months, so we should be able to access this in January without ponying up the $10.
4stellarexplorer
>2 haydninvienna: As far as who these traders may have been, the Smithsonian article was not specific. The minimal researching I did suggests that trading and activity in Oceania during the period in question (3000 to 8000 years ago) is not well understood. There have been claims about the important human groups at the time in the region, and then an apparently convincing debunking of claims.
My understanding of the populations according to this study is that one was associated with more recent affiliation with New Guinea. Does this mean
"they came from New Guinea"? Not clear, and seemingly carefully worded. The other group - it is implied - predated the southeastern group and arrived earlier, maybe a lot earlier. Did they previously inhabit the territory now associated with the southeastern group? Certainly not clear to me.
I’ll be interested in further developments. And if anyone knows more about Oceania history circa 3000-8000 years ago, I’d love to hear about it -
My understanding of the populations according to this study is that one was associated with more recent affiliation with New Guinea. Does this mean
"they came from New Guinea"? Not clear, and seemingly carefully worded. The other group - it is implied - predated the southeastern group and arrived earlier, maybe a lot earlier. Did they previously inhabit the territory now associated with the southeastern group? Certainly not clear to me.
I’ll be interested in further developments. And if anyone knows more about Oceania history circa 3000-8000 years ago, I’d love to hear about it -
5stellarexplorer
I unearthed some other interesting information:
“The fact that there are no dingo fossils in Tasmania indicates that dingoes must have arrived after rising waters separated the island from the Australian mainland about 12,000 years ago.
The 1969 discovery of archaeological evidence in caves on the Nullarbor Plain near Madura, Western Australia, has led to general agreement that the dingo was on the Australian mainland at least 3,500 years ago.”
https://www.nma.gov.au/defining-moments/resources/arrival-of-the-dingo
“The fact that there are no dingo fossils in Tasmania indicates that dingoes must have arrived after rising waters separated the island from the Australian mainland about 12,000 years ago.
The 1969 discovery of archaeological evidence in caves on the Nullarbor Plain near Madura, Western Australia, has led to general agreement that the dingo was on the Australian mainland at least 3,500 years ago.”
https://www.nma.gov.au/defining-moments/resources/arrival-of-the-dingo
6stellarexplorer
One thing I am still puzzling over is the arrival with humans on boats with humans. Looking into it a bit, it sounds like the ancestors of dingos were domesticated, which would make sense if they were with humans on boats. At some point, they must have become more feral. Evidently, there is no consensus on whether the dingo should be seen as feral or domesticated.
This section from Wikipedia - so be forewarned this is not peer reviewed - is interesting:
“The dingo is regarded as a feral dog because it descended from domesticated ancestors. The dingo's relationship with indigenous Australians is one of commensalism, in which two organisms live in close association, but do not depend on each other for survival. They both hunt and sleep together. The dingo is, therefore, comfortable enough around humans to associate with them, but is still capable of living independently. Any free-ranging, unowned dog can be socialised to become an owned dog, as some dingoes do when they join human families. Although the dingo exists in the wild, it associates with humans, but has not been selectively bred similarly to other domesticated animals. Therefore, its status as a domestic animal is not clear. Whether the dingo was a wild or domesticated species was not clarified from Meyer's original description, which translated from the German language reads:
It is not known if it is the only dog species in New South Wales, and if it can also still be found in the wild state; however, so far it appears to have lost little of its wild condition; moreover, no divergent varieties have been discovered.”
The other thing is that the Dingo is regarded as having replaced the marsupial (and famous) Thylacine that occupied Australia earlier. Since the dingo never reached Tasmania, the thylacine persisted on Tasmania, the last one having died in captivity in 1936.
This section from Wikipedia - so be forewarned this is not peer reviewed - is interesting:
“The dingo is regarded as a feral dog because it descended from domesticated ancestors. The dingo's relationship with indigenous Australians is one of commensalism, in which two organisms live in close association, but do not depend on each other for survival. They both hunt and sleep together. The dingo is, therefore, comfortable enough around humans to associate with them, but is still capable of living independently. Any free-ranging, unowned dog can be socialised to become an owned dog, as some dingoes do when they join human families. Although the dingo exists in the wild, it associates with humans, but has not been selectively bred similarly to other domesticated animals. Therefore, its status as a domestic animal is not clear. Whether the dingo was a wild or domesticated species was not clarified from Meyer's original description, which translated from the German language reads:
It is not known if it is the only dog species in New South Wales, and if it can also still be found in the wild state; however, so far it appears to have lost little of its wild condition; moreover, no divergent varieties have been discovered.”
The other thing is that the Dingo is regarded as having replaced the marsupial (and famous) Thylacine that occupied Australia earlier. Since the dingo never reached Tasmania, the thylacine persisted on Tasmania, the last one having died in captivity in 1936.
7Macumbeira
>2 haydninvienna: Polynesia was colonized, island by island, with sailing rafts from South - East Asia. First island hopping and then a big jump to the larger islands.
8stellarexplorer
>7 Macumbeira: Yes but not clear that the people who brought the ancestors of todays dingos to Australia were what we would call Polynesians
9Macumbeira
Correct, I was too fast with words and I am not a specialist either.
I read around a lot on the boating and navigational skills of these "proto- Polynesians or Micronesians " and it is clear that technically they could cross the waters on rafts with entire families, households, pets, seeds and so on. It is speculated that demographic pressure and clan animosity was the engine to push these people eastwards
I read around a lot on the boating and navigational skills of these "proto- Polynesians or Micronesians " and it is clear that technically they could cross the waters on rafts with entire families, households, pets, seeds and so on. It is speculated that demographic pressure and clan animosity was the engine to push these people eastwards
10stellarexplorer
And also clearly humans traversed the open waters From SE Asia to Australia 50-60 thousand years ago. Travel by water was possible for our ancestors a long time ago. Homo Floresiensis had to have crossed at least 30 km of open water between 800 and 900 thousand years ago. There are other examples. Apparently it’s a very old skill for our kind.
