To Aborigines, page-3

THE MYTH OF 65THOUSAND YEARS

October 2023

- Aboriginalsthemselves do not know the year they came to Australia.

- How geneticscan provide clarity

Two geneticapproaches can be used to assess these conflicting arguments as to whether theclaimed 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?

- A group of18 Aboriginal Australian men have had their DNA tested with the company, FamilyTree DNA, to determine the indicators of an Australian Aboriginal.

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

Clearly thedirect ancestors of our 18 Aboriginal Australian men had their feet firmly inAfrica at 65,000 years ago, and Arabia 60,000 years ago.

- Theseancestors of the Aborigines were not, indeed could not have been, in Australiaat that time.

For moredetailed information and in the Further Reading No.3 section , we provide moreindependent, genetic research that supports these timescales.

Refer: https://www.dark-emu-exposed.org/.../the-myth-of-65...

Conclusion

Theconclusions drawn by the scientists [Clarkson, et al] who published thearchaeological data from Madjedbebe, that is claimed to support the commonbelief that Australian Aborigines have been here for 65 thousand years, appearto be suspect.

Theseconclusions and claims are not based on genetics or the recovery of humanremains, but rather stone artifacts found in sediments said to be 65,000 yearsold.

DNA datasuggests that Madjedbebe in the Northern Territory could not have been occupiedby AMH’s or Aborigines, if the commonly accepted “Out of Africa” thesis is tobe maintained.

Many wouldsuggest that the conclusions and claims of these scientists are more driven bypolitics and ideology rather than science.

Peter G. Evans,BSc.