Eupedia Forums
Site NavigationEupedia Top > Eupedia Forum & Japan Forum
Results 1 to 2 of 2

Thread: Human settlement of the Sahul

  1. #1
    Advisor Achievements:
    VeteranThree Friends50000 Experience PointsRecommendation Second Class
    Awards:
    Posting Award
    Angela's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-01-11
    Posts
    14,948
    Points
    256,974
    Level
    100
    Points: 256,974, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 99.6%


    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: USA - New York



    1 out of 2 members found this post helpful.

    Talking Human settlement of the Sahul



    Size of the founding population: 1300-1550.
    https://www.nature.com/articles/s415...NmnI817w%3D%3D


    The timing, context and nature of the first people to enter Sahul is still poorly understood owing to a fragmented archaeologi-
    cal record. However, quantifying the plausible demographic context of this founding population is essential to determine how
    and why the initial peopling of Sahul occurred. We developed a stochastic, age-structured model using demographic rates from
    hunter-gatherer societies, and relative carrying capacity hindcasted with LOVECLIM’s net primary productivity for northern
    Sahul. We projected these populations to determine the resilience and minimum sizes required to avoid extinction. A census
    founding population of between 1,300 and 1,550 individuals was necessary to maintain a quasi-extinction threshold of 0.1.
    This minimum founding population could have arrived at a single point in time, or through multiple voyages of 130 people over
    ~700–900 years. This result shows that substantial population amalgamation in Sunda and Wallacea in Marine Isotope Stages
    3–4 provided the conditions for the successful, large-scale and probably planned peopling.



    Early human settlement of the Sahul was not an accident

    https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-42946-9

    "The first peopling of Sahul (Australia, New Guinea and the Aru Islands joined at lower sea levels) by anatomically modern humans required multiple maritime crossings through Wallacea, with at least one approaching 100 km. Whether these crossings were accidental or intentional is unknown. Using coastal-viewshed analysis and ocean drift modelling combined with population projections, we show that the probability of randomly reaching Sahul by any route is <5% until ≥40 adults are ‘washed off’ an island at least once every 20 years. We then demonstrate that choosing a time of departure and making minimal headway (0.5 knots) toward a destination greatly increases the likelihood of arrival. While drift modelling demonstrates the existence of ‘bottleneck’ crossings on all routes, arrival via New Guinea is more likely than via northwestern Australia. We conclude that anatomically modern humans had the capacity to plan and make open-sea voyages lasting several days by at least 50,000 years ago."



    Last edited by Angela; 19-06-19 at 22:22.


    Non si fa il proprio dovere perchè qualcuno ci dica grazie, lo si fa per principio, per se stessi, per la propria dignità. Oriana Fallaci

  2. #2
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1000 Experience Points1 year registered
    Joey37's Avatar
    Join Date
    11-06-18
    Location
    Coventry, Rhode Island
    Posts
    269
    Points
    2,919
    Level
    15
    Points: 2,919, Level: 15
    Level completed: 57%, Points required for next Level: 131
    Overall activity: 12.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1a-YP445
    MtDNA haplogroup
    J1c2b

    Ethnic group
    Celto-Germanic
    Country: USA - Rhode Island



    Oh, that's Sahul...at first I thought you just misspelled Sahel. Yes, New Guinea makes more sense, it is much closer.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •