Ellis. I've made a real study of Polynesian origins and I reckon this is the early history of the region.
The first people to Oz must have had some boating technology, otherwise they couldn't have got there. Fishing from bark or reeds tied together is a possibility. They almost certainly crossed Wallacea during the ice age (lowered sea level) from 75,000 to 50,000 years ago. Alan Thorne from ANU has claimed the Mungo fossils resemble contemporary fossils from China, Borneo and the Philipines rather than from SE Asia. Presumably the first Australians moved south down the East Asian coast. A rapid movement, similar to the Austronesian movement through the region 50,000 years later, would account for the minimum interaction with people already there.
When sea level rose again populations on small islands probably died out, through inbreeding if nothing else. Meanwhile back in mainland SE Asia the boating technology would have eventually been adopted and improved by the pre-existing population. With the next drop in sea level, at 30,000 years ago, off they went across Wallacea. Even reaching the northern Solomon Islands. Their boating technology was incapable of taking them further. The rest of the Pacific had to wait until the Austronesians had improved boating technology yet again (seems to have been in Taiwan) to feel the benefit of human occupation.
It's often claimed that Oz and NG are connected at times of low sea level but it's as likely that just a series of islands pop up between the two. As for NG, the south coast is fairly low-lying and heavily forested. Historically this has not been prime human real estate. The first lot through the region may not even have come that way. They may have been largely confined to the northern coast. The Sepik/Ramu group of languages is confined to the northern coast.
Yes, the Hoabinhian is extinct but their ancestors presumably still survive. This may explain the genetic difference between northern and southern Chinese.
