The Myth of 65 Thousand Years. The Genetic DNA of Aboriginal Men - Part 1 — Dark Emu Exposed

Oct 24

Oct 24 The Myth of 65 Thousand Years. The Genetic DNA of Aboriginal Men - Part 1

Country & Culture, Culture & Identity, Politics

“Our Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander tribes were the first sovereign Nations of the Australian continent and its adjacent islands, and possessed it under our own laws and customs. This our ancestors did, according to the reckoning of our culture, from the Creation, according to the common law from 'time immemorial', and according to science more than 60,000 years ago.”

- Extract from the Uluru statement from the Heart, from Everything you need to know about the Uluru Statement from the Heart by Megan Davis and George Williams, UNSW Press, 2021, pp211-12 (Ref 1)

“Sovereignty: 65,000 years of ancestral links to land. The moral legitimacy of Australia as a modern state will remain at issue while an honourable place for Indigenous Australians in the formal Constitution of the nation remains unresolved.

That place – one that accords the first peoples their rightful status as the original peoples and acknowledges the need for restitution of what was taken from them – must be found beyond the limits of the legal framework. The political settlement of these issues is well overdue.”

- Professor Marcia Langton in 2020, who claims to be of Yiman and Bidjara Aboriginal heritage

“When I went to school, I was taught that Aboriginal people have been in Australia for only 10,000 years and then I learnt the truth that Aboriginal people were living in Australia for more than 80,000 years when I got older … The ‘Out of Africa theory’ is a useful theory for European people as it fits in well, but the recent discoveries of stool tools in north Australia, which date back to over 100,000 years, tells us that Aboriginal people have been living in this country for a minimum of 80,000 years.”

- Professor [sic] Bruce Pascoe, who claims to be a Bunurong, Tasmanian and Yuin man, NITV Report 2016

In the lead up to the Voice Referendum of 14 Oct 2023, one would have been hard pressed to have escaped the constant repetition of the statement that the Australian Aborigines have been in Australia for 60 thousand or 65 thousand years.

This would suggest that Aboriginals themselves do not know the year they came to Australia, but instead rely on Western science to answer the question. One aspect that has been overlooked is why does the Uluru Statement from the Heart cite the figure of 60 thousand years, and not the more commonly used, and greater, figure of 65 thousand years?

The answer hangs on the matter of timing. The Uluru Statement from the Heart was "issued to the Australian people" at the 2017 National Constitutional Convention at Uluru on 26 May 2017, when one of its co-architects, Professor Megan Davis, publicly read it out for the first time. At that time, some people claimed that occupation went back 60 thousand years. (Ref 1 - Timeline pp8-14; p145.)

A short time later, a scientific paper was published by Chris Clarkson et al in the journal Nature. This paper was entitled 'Human occupation of northern Australia by 65,000 years ago'. it was published on 20 July 2017.

This paper claimed to have evidence of Aboriginal occupation at the site of Madjedbebe in the Northern Territory going back to 65 thousand years. It is this larger figure which is now widely quoted by many in the media, as well as by the supporters of the Yes Campaign.

The abstract of the Nature article makes some bold claims:

"Human occupation began around 65,000 years ago, with a distinctive stone tool assemblage including grinding stones, ground ochres, reflective additives and ground-edge hatchet heads. This evidence sets a new minimum age for the arrival of humans in Australia, the dispersal of modern humans out of Africa, and the subsequent interactions of modern humans with Neanderthals and Denisovans".

In particular, in the section headed, 'Discussion and implications', the authors claim that,

"The settlement of Madjedbebe ... sets a new minimum age for the human colonization of Australia and the dispersal of modern humans out of Africa and across south Asia".

The phrases "human" and "modern humans", which appear in the same sentence, actually mean different things. Whether by design or by accident, the authors appear to be suggesting that humans other than modern humans may have been in Australia prior to the arrival of Aboriginal modern humans from south Asia.

Conveniently (from an ideological point of view), they can now claim that,

"Our chronology places people in Australia more than 20 kyr [thousand years] before continent-wide extinction of the megafauna".

Previous researchers, such as Tim Flannery, have postulated that it was the arrival of Aboriginal people that killed off the megafauna (See debate summary in Wikipedia).

For those activists who wish to paint pre-colonial Aboriginal societies as ‘caring custodians’ of the landscape, the extinction of the megafauna by the Aborigines is poor ‘optics.’ Any archaeological evidence that ‘proves’ that Aboriginal people and the megafauna co-existed for millennia, without leading to extinctions, is thus most politically welcome. The blame for the extinctions can thus be blamed on climate change, not Aboriginal hunters.

Arguments Against the Claim of 65,000 Years

At least two scientific articles promptly appeared that questioned the 65,000 year dating by Clarkson et al in the Nature article.

The first by Jim Allen of LaTrobe University, Victoria was titled, 'Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus; He just doesn't bring presents to children who don't believe in him', which was published in Australian Archaeology 2017, 83:3, p163-5 (copy here)

Some eye-brow raising quotations from Allen’s article include:

“faith takes over from science";

"a myriad of errors and contradictions, I wondered whether any of the people associated with its publication had actually read it";

“No credible evidence for Homo sapiens at this age in Wallacea or SE Asia from which to derive the Madjedbebe folk, in either the genetic, archaeological or human skeletal data";

"Claims for seed grinding and edge-ground axes at an age that has no precedent in any SE Asian hominin assemblages, nor indeed elsewhere in the world";

"If the extreme antiquity claimed for Madjedbebe is reproduced from sites on different landforms, early human history in our part of the world will require quite a rewrite. On current evidence, it doesn't";

Regarding the authors mention of “hearths” - "where is the detailed stratigraphic evidence and description?"

"self-fulfilling fallacy" … and … "extraordinary claims such as these".

According to Jim Allen’s criticisms, readers could only really conclude, based on the evidence presented, that Madjedbebe was only occupied between 30 and 50 thousand years ago, not 65,000.

The second critique of the Nature paper was titled, When did Homo sapiens first reach Southeast Asia and Sahul?', which was published by the US National Academy of Sciences in 2018, by James F. O'Connell et al.

One of the authors of this critique informs (Ed.: by private communication) that these authors had originally submitted their paper to the same journal where Clarkson et al had published, Nature, but it was declined.

Subsequently, their submission of the paper to the Journal of the US National Academy of Sciences was successful. It is not known whether Nature declined to accept their response to Clarkson for ideological or scholarly reasons.

Some relevant quotations from this second critique of Clarkson’s Nature article were:

"These findings cannot be reconciled with a 65-ka date for Madjedbebe unless that date represents a cryptic earlier population movement that has left no identifiable trace in modern Australo-Melanesians, meaning that the former were not the ancestors of modern Aboriginal populations." (ibid. p4)

"With respect to genetics, the well-constrained timing of recent Neandertal introgression places an upper limit of ca. 55 ka on the origin of all modern non-African H. sapiens populations." (ibid. p6)

"A Madjedbebe archaeological age of 65 ka, if confirmed, would represent a group that did not contribute genetically to modern indigenous Australia–New Guinea populations." (ibid. p6)

In conclusion, these authors say,

"If we are correct, Madjedbebe cannot be promoted as proof of an AMH [anatomically modern human] presence in Southeast Asia and Sahul > 50 ka [thousand years ago]".

How genetics can provide clarity

Two genetic approaches can be used to assess these conflicting arguments as to whether the claimed human archaeology of Madjedbebe is really 65,000 years old.

Firstly, where were anatomically modern humans (AMH) actually located 65,000 years ago?

Secondly, what is the lineage of today’s living Aboriginal people?

Where were humans 65,000 years ago?

There is a DNA genetic phenomenon known as a single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP), which is a change to a single nucleotide in a DNA sequence. The relative mutation rate for an SNP is extremely low. This makes SNPs ideal for marking the history of the human genetic tree (Wikipedia).

A group of 18 Aboriginal Australian men have had their DNA tested with the company, Family Tree DNA, to determine the indicators of an Australian Aboriginal, Single Nucleotide Polymorphism Path (SNP Path).

The basic data from this study has been published and then manipulated and presented in a way [see the SNP Path Table in Figure 1] that allows us to visualise not only the ancestors of these Australian Aboriginal men, but also when and where their ancestors existed in the history of mankind.

Figure 1 - Extract from a table of SNP paths showing a group of 18 Aboriginal Australian men [*see last line at bottom of Table*] who have a ‘Most Recent Common Ancestor’ (MRCA) 7,330 years ago [5330 BCE]. *Source: Go* ***here*** and type in the “SNP” tab: "P308” - but see Further Reading No. 4 below for more details. [Ed.: Use Chrome rather than Safari as browser if page-loading problems arise]. [Nb: Data as of 21 July 2023, which may change sightly as future test results are added to the database].

The last row of the Table in Figure 1 displays the 18 Aboriginal Australian men who have a ‘Most Recent Common Ancestor’ (MRCA) 7,330 years ago [5330 BCE]. Their common SNP is S-P308.

The top row displays their earliest MRCA, some 234,000 years ago [232,000 BCE]. He has an SNP designated A-PR2921. The 18 Aboriginal men are genetically directly linked paternally to this ancestor.

As we move forward in time, down the rows in the Table, there are more branches emanating every time a SNP mutation occurs. These new branches expand to form a huge family tree through the generations. In each of these branches, there are less and less male descendants (testers). The SNP technique is only applicable to men, as it its based on the Y-chromasome [males are XY, females are XX- see Further Reading 2 below].

The column of “number of descendants” displays the descendants that have been tested for each of the SNPs in the path down towards the 18 Aboriginal men. The upper most man in the Table has 241,257 descendants tested to date, whereas the bottom most branch has only 18 men who have been tested, the 18 Aboriginal Australians.

To find the ancestors (their MRCA) of these 18 Aboriginal men at any point in the past we just need to read through the dates of the Table and select a date of interest.

For example, if we want to know who were the direct genetic ancestors of these 18 Aboriginal Australian men at 65,000 years ago [which is the claimed date of human habitation at Madjedbebe in the Northern Territory], we just need to read off the MRCA position at this date to get an estimate.

From the Table above we see that around this date, at 63,100 BCE corresponds to a y-SNP of CT-M168.

At this moment in history, this SNP of CT-M168 can be shown to be based geographically in the Horn of Africa as shown in the map in Figure 2 below.

Map locations are intended to show where a given SNP mutation occurred, not where a haplogroup may be most prevalent today [See Further Reading No. 4 below on how these time maps are created].

Figure 2 - Extract from a World Map of SNP paths showing the estimated geographical pathway “Out of Africa” of the ancestors of the group of 18 Aboriginal Australian men who have a ‘Most Recent Common Ancestor’ (MRCA) 7,330 years ago [5330 BCE]. *Source: Go* ***here*** and type in the “Map” tab: "P308” - but see Further Reading No.4 below for more details. [Ed.: Use Chrome rather than Safari as browser if page-loading problems arise]. [Nb: Data as of 21 July 2023, which may change sightly as future test results are added to the database - this may change the “path” appearance over time].

The map in Figure 2 above is based on the Y-DNA data of our SNP S-P308 cohort of 18 Aboriginal men.

The data places the ancestors of these 18 Aboriginal men approximately in the Horn of Africa, in East Africa around 65,000 years ago. By 60,000 years ago their ancestors appeared to have begun their great colonising trek and moved to the Arabian Peninsula. Both locations are a very long way away from Madjedbebe in the Northern Territory!

Clearly the direct ancestors of our 18 Aboriginal Australian men had their feet firmly in Africa at 65,000 years ago, and Arabia 60,000 years ago.

These ancestors of the Aborigines were not, indeed could not have been, in Australia at that time.

In the Further Reading No.3 section below, we provide more independent, genetic research that supports these timescales.

What is the Lineage of Today’s Living Aboriginal Australian Men?

As of 21 July 2023 there had been 241,257 men tested by the company, Family Tree DNA.

The group of the 18 Aboriginal Australian men, with their SNP named S-P308, are direct descendants of a man with an SNP called A-PR2921, who was living 234,000 years ago. He is known as Y-chromosomal Adam.

He is the patrilineal, most recent common ancestor (MRCA) from whom, it is said, all currently living humans are descended.

In other words, it is said that he is the most recent male from whom all living human males are descended through an unbroken line of their male ancestors. In fact, all men alive today are descended from him. That is over three billion men.

There is no man alive today who does not descend from him. [Although the informal name "Y-chromosomal Adam" is a reference to the biblical Adam, this should not be misconstrued as implying that the bearer of the chromosome was the only human male alive during his time. His other male contemporaries may also have descendants alive today, but not, by definition, through solely patrilineal descent; in other words, none of them have an unbroken male line of descendants (son's son's son's … son) connecting them to currently living people - Wikipedia].

The map in Figure 2 shows the geographical path that the ancestors of the 18 Aboriginal Australian men took to travel from Africa to Australia over 234,000 years - from an SNP of A-PR2921 through to S-P308.

The path starts in Africa some 234,000 years ago with Y-chromosomal Adam and proceeds to an SNP of CT-M168, which was still in Africa some 65,000 years ago. That is, these men had not yet left Africa so could not have been in Australia. Their path then progresses through Arabia and India to an end point somewhere in Indonesia around 7330 years ago. The final endpoint should be somewhere in Australia, but there is not enough data as yet to pinpoint the exact place.

Another way to visualise the data is through a table view. Looking at the Table again in Figure 1, we note the last row shows the 18 Aboriginal Australians at S-P308. The previous row is for the same 18 Aboriginal Australians, 23,000 years ago, at S-Z41513.

The previous row to this is for 62 men, which includes the 18 Aboriginal Australians, at 40,400 years ago, with an SNP of at S-Z42413. Against this row is an icon of a skull. This “skull” indicates that actual archeological data exists, in this case ancient DNA (aDNA) from the skeleton of an ancient man found south-west of Sydney.

The previous row is for 79 men, which also includes the 18 Aboriginal Australians. Although there are six aDNA remains tested (6 skull icons), only one relates to an Australian. He was located north of Rockingham and dated at 42,200 years ago, with an SNP of S-Z41337.

The next row back in time is for 88 men, which includes the 18 Aboriginal Australians. There was only one set of remains tested for aDNA in this group and that was of a skeleton discovered at Lake Mungo, New South Wales. He had an SNP of S-B255 and dated to around 41,400 years ago.

No further archaeological remains of Aboriginal men appear to have been found in Australia, tested and reported for Y-DNA, that is older than 43,400.

Continuing back in time, up the Table we reach the SNP CT-M168 some 65 thousand years ago in Africa.

Conclusion

The conclusions drawn by the scientists [Clarkson, et al] who published the archaeological data from Madjedbebe, that is claimed to support the common belief that Australian Aborigines have been here for 65 thousand years, appear to be suspect.

These conclusions and claims are not based on genetics or the recovery of human remains, but rather stone artifacts found in sediments said to be 65,000 years old.

DNA data suggests that Madjedbebe in the Northern Territory could not have been occupied by AMH’s or Aborigines, if the commonly accepted “Out of Africa” thesis is to be maintained.

Many would suggest that the conclusions and claims of these scientists are more driven by politics and ideology rather than science.

Peter G. Evans, BSc.