Origins of the Australian Aborigines and proto-Australian

| Origins: Australian Aborigines | Chris Illert CV | Proto-Australian Language | Traditional Aboriginal Languages |

Representation of the evolution of the genus Homo, from 2 million years ago to the present.

Were Aborigines the first Americans? Native tribes in the Amazon found to be most closely related to Indigenous Australians (Gray 2015)

What is the origin of the Aboriginal / Indigenous / First Nations people of Australia? Like all humanoids, their origins go back millions of years, to the 4.2 million year old Australopithicus genus represented in the above graphic, and Homo Habilis from around 2 million years ago. Their Dreaming speaks of being present in Country (i.e., Australia) forever. However, this concept does not align with Western science, due to the reliance on extant scientific evidence and its interpretation therein, taking precedence over Indigenous beliefs based on oral tradition. The word origin is also taken to mean arrival in Australia, as though there was no history, no culture, no development prior to that. We know the truth to be otherwise, and it is increasingly clear that hominid species evolved in locations all over the planet over the aforementioned times periods, and not simply in some African Garden of Eden during the last 200,000 years. A combination of Indigenous cultural knowledge and Western science can provide us with hints, or clues, as to the actuality of the presence in Australia; to possible and likely scenarios - scenarios which can assist in dealing with present day realities and future possibilities. The question of origins is also an interesting subject to pursue, in the hope of developing greater understanding between the two disparate civilisations, namely the West and First Nations. Just as languages don't have specific origins in time, but rather evolve over time, so too, putting specific limits on the origin of species in specific localities is problematic and only of limited use or applicability due to the serendipitous nature of the survival of artefacts and scientific evidence based upon such artefacts, and a rejection of traditional lore and belief as evidence in revealing the actual, complex / multifaceted story.

Aboriginal Dreaming tells us that the Indigenous population of Australia has inhabited the continent since time immemorial. Yet science for many years has emphatically stated, and largely continues to state, that the First Nations people came "out of Africa" (O-o-A) just 65,000 years ago (65 kya). This is a figure which remains in the public arena despite being subsequently been revised up to around 130,00 kya (Lewis 2016). The present author has always had a problem with the 65 kya date, for the simple fact that it did not seem ancient enough. Likewise, the 15 kya limit long placed upon the occupation of the Americas was not believable. It centred around the North American Indians and ignored evidence of much older races in both North and South America. Recent studies indicate that it should be extended out to at least 130 kya, like the Australian extension (Holden et. al. 2017). Both the Australasian and Americas positions could be related to the traditional Eurocentric bias of anthropological studies and focus therein on the Africa so-called Garden of Eden scenario which, itself, had Biblical origins.

The Australian Aborigines always seemed to be very different to modern Western and Eastern, including Asian races (though all are Homo sapiens) in regard to their culture, language and physical appearance. The Fuegians of South American and the oldest African race - The San - do bear some similarity. Neither did the 65 kya O-o-A scenario fit neatly with what the Aborigines believe, even if the limited scientific evidence suggested otherwise. This article does not claim that that event did not happen; rather it suggests that things had also taken place prior to it. Recent studies are pointing to possible population of the continent by humanoids due to multiple O-o-A and "into Africa" events dating back 1.8 million years, and occupation by hominids unrelated to such events. The fact of the humanoid species Homo erectus being present in nearby Indonesia 1.3 million years ago (1.3 mya) is suggestive of a possible - and likely - hominid presence in Australia much earlier than the 65 kya or 130 kya scenarios would suggest, as they were known to be seafarers (Everett 2018). With a strong oral tradition, the Australian Aborigines have remained unequivocal about their origins, even though the science has not supported their statements to date. However, the aforementioned discoveries are pointing to an ever closer connection between the ancient stories and knowledge of the First Nations people, and the findings of Western science.

The suggested Australian : Fuegian link may eventually prove significant. This author's views were influenced, in a small way, by the fact that during the 1990s, and in association with research into the English artist Conrad Martens' travels in South America during the 1830s, it was noted that the Indigenous people of Tierra del Fuego, inhabiting the isolated, sub-Antarctic regions at the very tip of South America and known as the Ona, Yaghan and Alacaluf, or Fuegians, bore many similarities to the Aboriginal people of Australia - more so than between any other groups on the planet, including the San.

Conrad Martens, Fuegans and the Beagle at Portrait Bay, Tierra del Fuego, 1834. Source: National Maritime Museum, Greenwich.

View in Port Jackson, New South Wales, circa 1788 [engraved 1794].

The Fuegeans were famously encountered by the British HMS Beagle survey and scientific expedition between 1829-36 and illustrated by Martens whilst visiting there in January 1834. In looking at Conrad Martens' watercolour and pencil sketches from that time, the Fuegeans appeared to be a much older race than the traditional 15 kya limit for the Americas, and different from the more recently arrived Indians. They seemed to be closer to the Australian Aborigines. In fact, a link was identified in 2015 (Thompson 2015, O'Neill 2015). More substantive DNA analyses of South American peoples published in 2021 expanded upon this (Price 2021, Silva 2021). How could such a think come about? There was no physical connection between the southern tip of America and Australasia in recent time, though there was in geological time some 150 mya, a long time before the development of humanoid species approximately 2 mya. Yet, the Fuegeans seemed to this author to be distant relatives of the Australian Aborigines, both in appearance and aspects of their culture. Recent studies revealing shared Denisovan DNA provide evidence for this link and, as a consequence, have turned the reliance on the simple and single O-o-A migration theory on its head. In addition, a connection between Indigenous people of the Amazon region - located north of Tierra del Fuego - and Australasians has been outlined in recent DNA studies from 2021. The question therefore arises: How could it be possible that such a connection existed between two populations located at the opposite ends of the earth and seemingly unconnected over an extensive period of time? Two YouTube video recently put forward an argument supporting a connection made by sea and an age of occupation of the Americas as far back as 130,000 years ago.(Holen et al. 2017).

Evidence of Ancient Australian Aborigines in South America, Highly Compelling, YouTube, 8 March 2022, duration: 11.13 minutes.

Controversial evidence of ancient man in Australia 120,000 years ago, Highly Compelling, 27 May 2022, YouTube, duration: 12.03 minutes.

Why do Amazonian people have some Australasian DNA?, Stefan Milo, 15 December 2023, YouTube, duration: 32.02 minutes.

Whilst this video suggests that Australian Aborigines, and/or their forebears, sailed across the ocean to Tierra del Fuego, the present author does not believe this is the complete answer to the connection. A much simpler scenario is the likelihood that they dispersed out of Asia and travelled to Australasia and Tierra del Fuego in numerous, though perhaps contemporaneous migrations more than 100k years ago, most probably by land across the Bering Strait region connecting Asia (Russia) with northern America. Science appears to be slowly moving in that direction, with recent archaeological studies suggesting the Fuegeans arrived in South America around 32kya, with the Native Americans (Indians) arriving later, around 15 kya and an unknown species present at least 130 kya.

The Beagle captain Robert FitzRoy subsequently took four Fuegeans from the Yaghan tribe back to England with him in 1830, including the famous Jemmy Button. He returned the three survivors a year later. One of Martens' shipboard comrades at the time was Charles Darwin, who went on to publish descriptions of his encounters with the Feugeans. Darwin noted a similarity between the Australians and Fuegians during a visit to New South Wales in December 1835 - January 1836. In his diary he made the following comparison on 16 January, upon encountering a group of twenty Aborigines near the foot of the Blue Mountains:

Never the less, they appear to me to stand some few degrees higher in civilization, or more correctly a few lower in barbarism, than the Fuegians. (Keynes 1988)

Darwin also noted in regard to the language spoken by the local people, aspects of its advanced nature:

I heard many of their remarks, which manifested considerable acuteness. (Keynes 1988)

He went on to discuss the origin of language in his famous, and controversial, The Origin of Species published in 1859. Therein he stated:

It may be worth while to illustrate this view of classification [of species], by taking the case of languages. If we possessed a perfect pedigree of mankind, a genealogical arrangement of the races of man would afford the best classification of the various languages now spoken throughout the world; and if all extinct languages, and all intermediate and slowly changing dialects, had to be included, such an arrangement would, I think, be the only possible one. Yet it might be that some very ancient language had altered little, and had given rise to few new languages, whilst others (owing to the spreading and subsequent isolation and states of civilisation of the several races, descended from a common race) had altered much, and had given rise to many new languages and dialects. The various degrees of difference in the languages from the same stock, would have to be expressed by groups subordinate to groups; but the proper or even only possible arrangement would still be genealogical; and this would be strictly natural, as it would connect together all languages, extinct and modern, by the closest affinities, and would give the filiation and origin of each tongue. (Darwin 1859)

Darwin's comments are profoundly prophetic, just as relevant today as they were when written. The development of the Australian Aboriginal language is a case in point, and one which this blog will attempt to reveal, for it could be said to represent a 'very ancient language' which has 'altered little'. Its relative physical isolation enabled this, whilst limited diversification over the continent can also be said to have 'given rise to many new ..... dialects' which nevertheless remain very close to the original proto-language, or a stage therein.

The subject of the origin of language and languages continues to confuse and elude scientists and linguists, for it involves a myriad of elements - physiology, anthropology, biology, psychology and sociology, to name but a few.

Homo species diversity

The likely connection between the peoples of Australia and Tierra del Fuego, and even the San of southern Africa, along with recent discoveries by Western science, has opened up the possibility of a more complex origin for the Australian Aboriginal people. If both Australians and Fuegians have an origin going back more that 130kya, then the development of the story of connection is made much easier, with many more options and possibilities. In order to appreciate and understand some of this, we need to provide context, and a brief outline of what we now know of the past. Of course, the complexity of this subject is beyond the realms of a simple blog, and is also evolving, with no clear picture or universally accepted position at present, due primarily to the fragmentary nature of the physical evidence, and limitations in regard to how that evidence is interpreted and re-interpreted. However, a brief outline of what is known and what is possible can be given.

The family tree for Homo sapiens (modern humans) is, as a result of recent DNA and archaeological discoveries, subject to ongoing refinement, as is the place of the Australian Aborigines in that tree. This blog will provide a brief summary of the past in regard to what we know about the Australian Aborigines, and also support the argument that their origins are very different to the simple, single O-o-A scenario which continues to be promoted. At the outset, it should be noted that a discovery, or evidence of a thing, does not prove that it is the first, or the place of origin, or the only occurrence of that thing. It merely tells us that that thing, be it a fossil, a bone, an artifact, or some other physical evidence, was present at the place it was found during a particular moment in time, and it may (or most likely) have originated, or evolved, at some other locality, or localities. The serendipitous nature of the survival of artefacts must always be taken into account, with caves providing the majority of locations for discovery of ancient and fossilised hominid material in recent years, due to the physical environment of caves which can, in certain instances, promote preservation. Where caves are not common, finds are rare due to natural attrition arising from weathering and geological or geographical events plus, of course, hominid interventions. The fact that archaeological discoveries are often associated with excavations connected to urban development and other constructions, also points to the fact that much is also destroyed and unreported.

The human family tree

The oldest human-related fossil remains - the hominid species Homo habilis - date back 2.8 million years. Homo habilis is descended from the ape-like hominid Australopithecus (refer illustration at the head of this article). Habilis survived through to about 1.5 mya and was a similar ape-like humanoid, evolving from the Great Apes which first appeared 20 mya. The fossilized bones of the first real human - Homo erectus - date back to 1.8 mya. It walked upright on two legs, had a brain size similar to our own - though on the small end of the spectrum - and also the facility to speak, though that was not as evolved as seen in Homo sapiens which appeared only about 400 kya (Everett 2018). Evidence of the presence of Homo erectus in Java, Indonesia, located close to northern Australia, dates back to 1.3 mya - more than three times as ancient as the known presence on the planet of Homo sapiens. This evidence was found during 1891, indicating therein the ability of Homo erectus to manage fire, make stone tools, construct shelters and employ complex burial ceremonies. The development of hominid species has in large part been neglected, with an emphasis on Homo sapiens and popular presentation of Neandethals, for example, as Frankenstein monster-like cannibalistic brutes, of which they were not.

Humanoid bones from a similar period to those found in Java were also subsequently found in Kenya (1.9 mya), Georgia (1.8 mya) and China (1.7 mya). This provides evidence for humanoid occupation of a substantial part of the world around 2 mya - in Europe (East and West), Africa and Asia. Such a thought would come as a surprise to many people, as the much younger O-o-A 65 kya scenario usually fails to mention it, and people are left with the idea that everyone, and everything, derives from that single event, and that when the O-o-A peoples arrived in a location, there were no other hominids of note there. The reality is very very different. There was, as outlined above, evolution of hominids over a long period of time, and in localities across the planet, with corresponding interbreeding. This needs to be born in mind when we talk about the development of the present human species Homo sapiens, because it would seem that there were many of branches of the human tree spread far and wide beyond Africa, with intermingling of species taking place over an extensive period of time before the actual appearance of Homo sapiens as we know them today.

This blog cannot deal with the complexity of such scenarios, many of which are changing and evolving themselves. One commentator, in addressing the issue of what happened to the other species of hominids who coexisted for a long period with Homo sapiens, including Neanderthals and Denisovans, reminded us of the ability of humans to carry out genocide. This has been observed on a number of occasions in recent history, and can very likely, in part, answer the question as to what was the fate of those other species who disappeared by around 30 kya when faced with the more physiologically 'advanced' Homo sapiens.

Past scientific research has focused on, and been biased towards, Africa and Europe, and for good reason - this is the traditional centre of the phenomena known as Western Civilisation. However, this has been extended in recent years through DNA studies of artefacts from the Americas - North and South - Russia, Asia, and outliers including Australia and Tierra del Fuego, with fossil evidence such as tools and bones being revealed, alongside new DNA analyses of old discoveries. This is important, because many people have been tied to the belief that human kind developed in the Biblical manner, or a variant thereof. That is, they believe there was a Garden of Eden in Africa or the Middle East where, around 4,600BC, or just on 7,000 years ago, God created the earth and all upon it in seven days, including a single man and a single woman. From them we are all descended, we are told by the Creationists, and speech likewise appeared fully developed in a single event. This belief was only challenged by Charles Darwin's theory of evolution in the 1860s. Subsequent archaeological and other scientific evidence points to a slow, natural evolution over the 4.6 billion years of the life of the planet, from single celled organisms through to apes (20 mya) and human kind (2 mya).

Modern humans are now scientifically identified as Homo sapiens sapiens, and it is believed that they first developed in Africa some 400 kya, with the present physiological ability regarding speech developing over a similar period. The traditional O-o-A theory talked about a single wave of migration to places such as Australia 65 kya. That has recently been modified to a number of O-o-A waves of migration dating to circa 90 kya and as far back at 1.8 mya. In addition, recent (2020) discoveries identified Neanderthals in a "return to Africa" (R-t-A) scenario, leading to a mix with Homo sapiens prior to another O-o-A event. DNA studies have revealed information about other species present during the development of Homo sapiens, namely the aforementioned Homo neanderthalensis and the still little-known Denisovans who have a significant presence in Asia, Australia and the Americas. The following graphic reveals the development, or evolution, of hominids over the last 7 million years.

Interbreeding between the three known species (Sapiens, Neanderthals and Denisovans) and others took place over a long period of time. This is evident from DNA studies of Australian Aborigines which reveal 4-5% Denisovan DNA present, alongside Neanderthal (2%) within the primary Homo sapien sapien mix. Denisovan is also found in Southeast Asians, native Americans and the Fuegans, suggesting that the latter moved onto the American continent at least as early as the 65 kya O-o-A event, though more likely much earlier (130 kya +) and not necessarily through the direct O-o-A route. In fact, the Denisovans evolved elsewhere as there is no Denisovan DNA present in present-day Africans, though there is Neanderthal. It is quite possible, therefore, that the Australian Aborigines evolved primarily from Denisovans, with a later introduction of Neanderthal and O-o-A Homo sapien. In order to better understand this complex, and evolving landscape, the following timeline is presented. It is a planetary summary, with emphasis on events in Australia.

Australian Time Scale

The following time scale covers 4.6 billion years and is supplemented by a graphic covering the most recent 700 million years.

4.6 billion years ago (bya) - formation of the planet Earth.

4.4 bya - zircon crystals identified in Australian rocks.

3.5 bya - earliest Australian fossils - microbes / stromatolites. These are the oldest planetary land-based fossils ever found.

3 bya - oldest Australian rocks.

700 million years ago (mya) - Pre-Cambrian geological period. Life first recorded.

540-485 mya - Cambrian geological period.

485-444 mya - Ordovician geological period.

444-419 mya - Silurian geological period.

419-359 mya - Devonian geological period.

359-299 mya - Carboniferous geological period.

299-252 mya - Permian geological period.

252-201 mya - Triassic geological period.

- 220 mya - oldest dinosaur fossil tracks.

201-145 mya - Jurassic geological period.

- 170 mya - oldest dinosaur fossil - Ozraptor subotaii - Middle Jurassic period.

145-66 mya - Cretaceous geological period.

2.8 mya - oldest human-like fossil.

2.5-1.7 mya - Homo habilis and Homo erectus.

1.9 mya - Earliest 'Out of Africa' dispersal event of super archaics. Homo erectus travels to Eurasia and Southeast Asia / Australasia(?).

1.3 mya - Evidence of Homo erectus in Java, Indonesia.

c.770-400 kya - "muddle in the middle" period.

744 kya - super archaics interbreed with Neanderthal - Denisovan ancestors and split.

700 kya - 'Out of Africa' dispersal event of Neanderthal - Denisovan ancestors.

600 kya - Denisovans and Neanderthal split (refer graphic below).

400-200 kya - evolution of Homo sapiens in Africa.

300-40 kya - Neanderthals and Denisovans present in Eurasia.

c.90 kya - 'Out of Africa' Homo sapien migration event.

c.65 kya - 'Out of Africa' Homo sapien migration event.

29 kya - Denisovan interbreed with Homo sapiens.

- Last evidence of the Denisovans and Neanderthals, possibly due to a major volcanic event which lead to extensive popular loss around this time, coupled with the impact of the arrival of Homo sapiens.

10 kya - Evidence of Homo erectus surviving in Indonesia, close to Australia.

As scientific evidence evolves, analyses change and the more we know, the more we realise we do not know exactly what has taken place. The simple, single 65 kya O-o-A event explaining the origin of the Australian Aborigines is therefore, in the opinion of this author, no longer sustainable. We should focus on the 130 kya date and the implications therein.

The oldest language : proto-Australian

What is the oldest living language on the planet? According to Google it is Tamil. Why? Because a Tamil researcher said so, and because Tamil has its origins in one of the oldest known written languages, dating back some 5,000 years. Other ancient written languages - which can also lay claim to 'oldest' - include Egyptian, Dravidian and Hebrew. The problem with the Google response to the question - and there is a problem - is that their oldest living language identification is based on the oldest written language, and not on the oldest spoken language. NB: Google is not the decision maker here, but the individual linguists and scientists who promote the idea of Tamil as the oldest language, based on the written-only criteria.

Ignoring for a moment written languages, we must remember that spoken languages are not born - they evolve, and they do this very slowly over time. It is obvious that spoken language developed a long time before the appearance of written language, and actual communication between sentient beings developed even longer time before that. We are told by one researcher that hominids have been able to communicate since at least the appearance of Homo erectus 2 mya (Everett 2018). And that specific communication, in and of itself, evolved from gestures through to artistic expression utilising symbols and icons, and on to speech, with formal written languages only appearing in very recent times (circa 5 kya). We can see some of this evolution in plain sight, when we observe animals such as birds, cats, dogs and apes. They communicate; they pass on knowledge and intuition to their young ones; they engage in social interaction amongst themselves and with others, including humans. Some humans have a special ability to communicate with animals across the spectrum of species, though such communication is not necessarily tied to any specific speech-based language. Animals do not speak as we do, but their brains operate and enable communication to a level which likely reflects the ancient origins of human communication. For we must remember that all our present communication is not reliant totally upon language, and that the brain is able to facilitate other non-language or speech-based forms of communication and memory.

As Darwin noted above, ... it might be that some very ancient language had altered little ... and survives to the present day in a form which provides a key - a veritable Rosetta Stone - to the very origins of language. In fact, and following on Darwin's comments, one researcher - Dr. Chris Illert of Australia - has proposed that the oldest living language is what he refers to as proto-Australian, which he has scientifically proposed can be dated back to at least the 65,000 year old "out of Africa" event. He also suggests that proto-Australian is the closest example we have to the root of all modern living languages, or the oldest surviving example of the four or five suggested proto-languages which existed on the planet between 15-65 kya.

Illert's proto-Australian is based on an analysis of the extant Australian Aboriginal language being used in the south eastern part of the continent at the time of the arrival of Europeans in 1788. Other known proto-languages only go back as far as 5,000 years ago, like Tamil, as they are based on the evidence from surviving written languages. Illert has taken a different path in using mathematics and the theory of entropy to date the origins of proto-Australian back further than all others now known langauges. The evidence provided in his various published papers and 2013 PhD thesis is compelling, though the complexity therein has limited acceptance of his discoveries by the wider linguistic community, as least to date.

Illert's work points to the fact that in regards to the origins of human kind and its intimate relation to language, there is much to uncover. Also, it is becoming increasingly obvious that the theories put forward to date regarding both are too simplistic in attempting to explain the infinite complexity of the past and the evolutionary process, whether it applies to anthropology or linguistics. Science tells us that up to 400,000 years ago Homo sapiens developed the appropriate physiology to talk in a form similar to the present, following on the previous developments by Homo erectus. Spoken language is therefore likely to be at least that old, though much older, evolving out of a plethora of hominid forms of communication. Illert's discoveries at least offer us the opportunity to take a leap beyond the 5,000 years ago barrier presently in place in regard to the study of the origin of language.

--------------------------

References

Anitai, Stefan, The Enigma of the Natives of Tierra del Fuego, Softpedia News, 11 March 2008.

Carter, Richard, Charles Darwin on the family tree of languages, The Friends of Charles Darwin [blog], 24 January 2015.

Darwin, Charles, On the Origin of Species by means of Natural Selection, John Murray, London, 1859, 502p.

Everett, David L., How Language Began - Homo erectus and the Origin of Language, Einstein Forum [video], 12 November 2018, duration: 86.52 minutes.

Gray, Richard, Were Aborigines the first Americans? Native tribes in the Amazon found to be most closely related to Indigenous Australians, Daily Mail, 23 July 2015.

Holden et. al., A 130,000 year old archaeological site in southern California, USA, Nature, 544, 2017, 479-483.

Holen, Steven R. et al., A 130,000 year old archaeological site in southern California, USA, Nature, 544, 2017, 479-483.

Keynes, Richard Darwin (editor), Charles Darwin's Beagle Diary, Cambridge University Press, 1988, 464p.

Lewis, Daniel, New DNA Analysis Shows Aboriginal Australians are the World’s Oldest Society, Smithsonian Magazine, 23 September 2016.

McNiven, Ian J., et al., The Moyjil site, South-west Victoria, Australia: Excavation of a Last Interglacial charcoal and burnt stone feature - Is it a hearth?, Proceedings of the Royal Society of Victoria, 130, 2018, 94-116.

O'Neill, Graeme, Ancient DNA links connect Australians, South Americans, The New Daily, 22 July 2015.

Price, Michael, Earliest South American migration had Indigenous Australian Melanesian ancestry, Science.org, 29 March 2021.

Sherwood, John E., The Moyjil site, South-west Victoria, Australia. Prologue - of people, birds, shell and fire, Proceedings of the Royal Society of Victoria, 130, 2018, 7-13.

Silva, MAC e et al., Deep genetic affinity between coastal Pacific and Amazonian natives evidenced by Australasian ancestry, Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 118(4), 29 March 2021.

Thompson, Helen, A DNA search for the first Americans links Amazon groups to Indigenous Australians, Smithsonian Magazine, 21 July 2015.

-----------------------

| Origins: Australian Aborigines | Chris Illert CV | Proto-Australian Language | Traditional Aboriginal Languages |

Last updated: 4 November 2024

Michael Organ, Australia (Home)