It appears you don't have support to open PDFs in this web browser. To view this file, Open with your PDF reader
Abstract
Archaeological evidence suggests that dogs were introduced to the islands of Oceania via Island Southeast Asia around 3,300 years ago, and reached the eastern islands of Polynesia by the fourteenth century AD. This dispersal is intimately tied to human expansion, but the involvement of dogs in Pacific migrations is not well understood. Our analyses of seven new complete ancient mitogenomes and five partial mtDNA sequences from archaeological dog specimens from Mainland and Island Southeast Asia and the Pacific suggests at least three dog dispersal events into the region, in addition to the introduction of dingoes to Australia. We see an early introduction of dogs to Island Southeast Asia, which does not appear to extend into the islands of Oceania. A shared haplogroup identified between Iron Age Taiwanese dogs, terminal-Lapita and post-Lapita dogs suggests that at least one dog lineage was introduced to Near Oceania by or as the result of interactions with Austronesian language speakers associated with the Lapita Cultural Complex. We did not find any evidence that these dogs were successfully transported beyond New Guinea. Finally, we identify a widespread dog clade found across the Pacific, including the islands of Polynesia, which likely suggests a post-Lapita dog introduction from southern Island Southeast Asia.
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
Details

1 Department of Anthropology and Archaeology, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand
2 Department of Anatomy, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand
3 Department of Human Genetics, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Los Angeles, United States of America
4 Archaeology Department, American Samoa Power Authority, Pago Pago, American Samoa, USA
5 Anthropology, School of Social Sciences, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand
6 Monash Indigenous Studies Centre, Monash University, VIC, Australia; ARC Centre of Excellence for Australian Biodiversity & Heritage, Acton, ACT, Australia
7 School of Humanities, University of New England, Armidale, NSW, Australia
8 Institute of History and Philology, Academia Sinica, Taipei City 115, Taiwan
9 Archaeology & Natural History, School of Culture History & Language, College of Asia & the Pacific, Australian National University, Acton, ACT, Australia; ARC Centre of Excellence for Australian Biodiversity & Heritage, Acton, ACT, Australia