Most Indigenous languages in Australia likely originated from a remote spot in far north Queensland as recently as 4,000 years ago, before slowly spreading across the country, a new study has claimed.

The paper, published in the journal Nature on Tuesday, mapped the origins of the Pama-Nyungan family of languages, which encompasses about 90% of the continent. It traced the dominant family of languages back to an area near an isolated place known today as Burketown.

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2018/mar/14/most-australian-indigenous-languages-came-from-just-one-place-research-claims

An interesting article in today’s Gran.

sibeen said:

Most Indigenous languages in Australia likely originated from a remote spot in far north Queensland as recently as 4,000 years ago, before slowly spreading across the country, a new study has claimed.

The paper, published in the journal Nature on Tuesday, mapped the origins of the Pama-Nyungan family of languages, which encompasses about 90% of the continent. It traced the dominant family of languages back to an area near an isolated place known today as Burketown.

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2018/mar/14/most-australian-indigenous-languages-came-from-just-one-place-research-claims

An interesting article in today’s Gran.

Um unlikely spot for the beginning of settlement.

Tamb said:

sibeen said:

Most Indigenous languages in Australia likely originated from a remote spot in far north Queensland as recently as 4,000 years ago, before slowly spreading across the country, a new study has claimed.

The paper, published in the journal Nature on Tuesday, mapped the origins of the Pama-Nyungan family of languages, which encompasses about 90% of the continent. It traced the dominant family of languages back to an area near an isolated place known today as Burketown.

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2018/mar/14/most-australian-indigenous-languages-came-from-just-one-place-research-claims

An interesting article in today’s Gran.

Um unlikely spot for the beginning of settlement.

Oops An unlikely spot for the beginning of settlement.
https://www.bing.com/maps?&ty=18&q=Burketown&satid=id.sid%3a6d294c5e-32e3-bd7c-570b-a946b76c7b72&vdpid=5284&mb=-17.55335~139.35434~-18.089899~139.837097&ppois=-17.7408695220947_139.548797607422_Burketown_~&cp=-17.74087~139.548798&v=2&sV=1

sibeen said:

Most Indigenous languages in Australia likely originated from a remote spot in far north Queensland as recently as 4,000 years ago, before slowly spreading across the country, a new study has claimed.

The paper, published in the journal Nature on Tuesday, mapped the origins of the Pama-Nyungan family of languages, which encompasses about 90% of the continent. It traced the dominant family of languages back to an area near an isolated place known today as Burketown.

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2018/mar/14/most-australian-indigenous-languages-came-from-just-one-place-research-claims

An interesting article in today’s Gran.

A few things tie in quite nicely around that time period, corresponding to an influx of Y-chromosomes from the Indian Subcontinent.

As Alan J. Redd notes in his 2012 paper “Gene Flow from the Indian Subcontinent to Australia: Evidence from the Y Chromosome”:

“The divergence times reported here correspond with a series of changes in the Australian anthropological record between 5,000 years ago and 3,000 years ago, including the introduction of the dingo; the spread of the Australian Small Tool tradition; the appearance of plant-processing technologies, especially complex detoxification of cycads; and the expansion of the Pama-Nyungan language over seven-eighths of Australia.”

Also of note is the similarity between Pama-Nyungan and Dravidian languages (Dravidian being one of the major language families of Southern India).

In The Languages of Australia by R. M. W. Dixon*, the following comparisons are made:

There is considerable typological similarity between languages of Dravidian and Australian families. Bishop Robert Caldwell remarked in 1856 that they had similar word order, agglutinative morphology, use of postpositions instead of prepositions, types of verbal derivational affixes, and an inclusive/exclusive distinction in non-singular first person pronouns. These are in fact all fairly broad typological classes each being shown by many languages. The most remarkable similarity is at the phonological level. Many Dravidian languages have, like Australian tongues (6.4) six series of stops and nasals – labial, dorso-velar, apico-alveovelar, apico-retroflex, palatal, and APICO-dental (this is the only significant difference – Australian languages generally have a LAMINO-dental series, with the blade of the tongue, not the tip, touching the teeth). There are two or more laterals, two rhotics and scarcely any fricatives; proto-Dravidian, at least, had no voicing contrast between stops. There are even strong phonotactic similarities – apico-alveolars and apico-retroflexes are not generally found word-initially in Dravidian Unfortunately, a detailed comparison yields scarcely any formal correspondeances. There is a dative case inflection which is ku in many Dravidian and -ku (=-gu) in most Australian languages; but there is little else. Pronouns yield little; Dravidian second person singular forms beginning in ni were at one time thought to be close to Australian forms ‘nin-” but these are now seen to have been poor attempts to transcribe ngin- and nyin (<*ngin -see 11.1.4). The typological parallels between Australian and Dravidian are striking, but the matter ends there.

All of this adds to speculation of a genuine connection between the Pama-Nyungan and Dravidian language families but the matter is unlikely ever to be resolved positively.

When I was in Myanmar I was struck by how many of the place names (such as Bandoola, Anawratha, Irrawaddy, Kandawgyi, Thilawa) sounded like Aboriginal place names (such as Boolaroo, Karratha, Illawarra, Wonthaggi, Tharwa, Allawa).

dv said:

When I was in Myanmar I was struck by how many of the place names (such as Bandoola, Anawratha, Irrawaddy, Kandawgyi, Thilawa) sounded like Aboriginal place names (such as Boolaroo, Karratha, Illawarra, Wonthaggi, Tharwa, Allawa).

If Out Of Africa is true that makes sense.

dv said:

When I was in Myanmar I was struck by how many of the place names (such as Bandoola, Anawratha, Irrawaddy, Kandawgyi, Thilawa) sounded like Aboriginal place names (such as Boolaroo, Karratha, Illawarra, Wonthaggi, Tharwa, Allawa).

Natural pronunication progression of language perhaps

Tamb said:

dv said:

When I was in Myanmar I was struck by how many of the place names (such as Bandoola, Anawratha, Irrawaddy, Kandawgyi, Thilawa) sounded like Aboriginal place names (such as Boolaroo, Karratha, Illawarra, Wonthaggi, Tharwa, Allawa).

If Out Of Africa is true that makes sense.

mmm not so much. We’d expect to detect similarities between languages with a common origin a few thousand years back, but not on the time scale of the African exodus.

So what language did these people speak for the previous 50 or 60 thousand years?

roughbarked said:

So what language did these people speak for the previous 50 or 60 thousand years?

auslan

dv said:

Tamb said:

dv said:

When I was in Myanmar I was struck by how many of the place names (such as Bandoola, Anawratha, Irrawaddy, Kandawgyi, Thilawa) sounded like Aboriginal place names (such as Boolaroo, Karratha, Illawarra, Wonthaggi, Tharwa, Allawa).

If Out Of Africa is true that makes sense.

mmm not so much. We’d expect to detect similarities between languages with a common origin a few thousand years back, but not on the time scale of the African exodus.

I was thinking that the Burmese language had settled down & then, many years later, some Burmese moved to Oz with that language.

roughbarked said:

So what language did these people speak for the previous 50 or 60 thousand years?

Well what do you mean? The Indian migrants to Australia 4000 years ago probably spoke some kind of Proto-Dravidian…

roughbarked said:

So what language did these people speak for the previous 50 or 60 thousand years?

Perhaps this more modern language came to dominant previous languages, maybe it was more useful for example or the originators slowly infiltrated numerous tribes spreading the language

Tamb said:

dv said:

Tamb said:

If Out Of Africa is true that makes sense.

mmm not so much. We’d expect to detect similarities between languages with a common origin a few thousand years back, but not on the time scale of the African exodus.

I was thinking that the Burmese language had settled down & then, many years later, some Burmese moved to Oz with that language.

Yeah I know, but you mentioned Out Of Africa, which involves waves of migration from 130000 to 70000 years ago.

Cymek said:

roughbarked said:

So what language did these people speak for the previous 50 or 60 thousand years?

Perhaps this more modern language came to dominant previous languages, maybe it was more useful for example or the originators slowly infiltrated numerous tribes spreading the language

Like English is doing now.

dv said:

roughbarked said:

So what language did these people speak for the previous 50 or 60 thousand years?

Well what do you mean? The Indian migrants to Australia 4000 years ago probably spoke some kind of Proto-Dravidian…

Aboriginal people have been around a lot longer than 4000 years so they must have spoken other languages before this newer one came along

dv said:

Tamb said:

dv said:

mmm not so much. We’d expect to detect similarities between languages with a common origin a few thousand years back, but not on the time scale of the African exodus.

I was thinking that the Burmese language had settled down & then, many years later, some Burmese moved to Oz with that language.

Yeah I know, but you mentioned Out Of Africa, which involves waves of migration from 130000 to 70000 years ago.

Wouldn’t that be how humans got to Burma?

Cymek said:

roughbarked said:

So what language did these people speak for the previous 50 or 60 thousand years?

Perhaps this more modern language came to dominant previous languages, maybe it was more useful for example or the originators slowly infiltrated numerous tribes spreading the language

I can imagine that peoples in Northern Australia may have needed to communicate with traders visiting this land four or five thousand years ago.

Tamb said:

dv said:

Tamb said:

I was thinking that the Burmese language had settled down & then, many years later, some Burmese moved to Oz with that language.

Yeah I know, but you mentioned Out Of Africa, which involves waves of migration from 130000 to 70000 years ago.

Wouldn’t that be how humans got to Burma?

One would imagine so.

Depending on how you split them, there were about 300 languages in Australia at the time of European colonisation. Most of these were Pama-Nyungan, but dozens were in other language families. There are at least ten seemingly unrelated indigenous language families in Australia.

For all we know, of course, none of those language families originated in Australia, but could instead have been the result of influxes from the north.

As for the reason why the Pama-Nyungan language family spread so fast, as mentioned above the timing coincides with certain plant and tool technologies. Perhaps these gave a cultural advantage to the P-M speakers.

dv said:

Depending on how you split them, there were about 300 languages in Australia at the time of European colonisation. Most of these were Pama-Nyungan, but dozens were in other language families. There are at least ten seemingly unrelated indigenous language families in Australia.

For all we know, of course, none of those language families originated in Australia, but could instead have been the result of influxes from the north.

As for the reason why the Pama-Nyungan language family spread so fast, as mentioned above the timing coincides with certain plant and tool technologies. Perhaps these gave a cultural advantage to the P-M speakers.

Trade. By this time extensive trade routes were in use throughout the interior.

roughbarked said:

dv said:

Depending on how you split them, there were about 300 languages in Australia at the time of European colonisation. Most of these were Pama-Nyungan, but dozens were in other language families. There are at least ten seemingly unrelated indigenous language families in Australia.

For all we know, of course, none of those language families originated in Australia, but could instead have been the result of influxes from the north.

As for the reason why the Pama-Nyungan language family spread so fast, as mentioned above the timing coincides with certain plant and tool technologies. Perhaps these gave a cultural advantage to the P-M speakers.

Trade. By this time extensive trade routes were in use throughout the interior.

Learning a language of trade on the sly would give you an advantage if the other party tried to rip you off.

Cymek said:

roughbarked said:

dv said:

Depending on how you split them, there were about 300 languages in Australia at the time of European colonisation. Most of these were Pama-Nyungan, but dozens were in other language families. There are at least ten seemingly unrelated indigenous language families in Australia.

For all we know, of course, none of those language families originated in Australia, but could instead have been the result of influxes from the north.

As for the reason why the Pama-Nyungan language family spread so fast, as mentioned above the timing coincides with certain plant and tool technologies. Perhaps these gave a cultural advantage to the P-M speakers.

Trade. By this time extensive trade routes were in use throughout the interior.

Learning a language of trade on the sly would give you an advantage if the other party tried to rip you off.

Particularly when a steel axe was worth to or three wives in trade value.

This is the sort of thread that might inspire Steve (primus) to decloak, he studied Aboriginal languages I believe.

Tasmania?

Peak Warming Man said:

This is the sort of thread that might inspire Steve (primus) to decloak, he studied Aboriginal languages I believe.

That could well be a good thing.

sarahs mum said:

Tasmania?

It is an interesting question because Tasmania would have had the older languages.

Peak Warming Man said:

This is the sort of thread that might inspire Steve (primus) to decloak, he studied Aboriginal languages I believe.

That’d be a nice present :)

dv said:

roughbarked said:

So what language did these people speak for the previous 50 or 60 thousand years?

Well what do you mean? The Indian migrants to Australia 4000 years ago probably spoke some kind of Proto-Dravidian…

:-)

That agrees with what I know. I know a purebred Dravidian who looks half aboriginal.

I’m quite surprised at the recent date of 4000 years. And it does tie in neatly with the dingo date.

I’m not surprised by Burketown. A lot more influences travelled south from Cape York than travelled north from Tasmania. Further, the further north in Australia you go the higher the density of Aboriginal population and the more languages and tribes.

Does this mean that Aborigines haven’t talked to one another for 4,000 years? Or have been in a state of permanent war for 4,000 years?

How reliable is the date of 4,000 years? And somebody mentioned Y chromosome results?

mollwollfumble said:

dv said:

roughbarked said:

So what language did these people speak for the previous 50 or 60 thousand years?

Well what do you mean? The Indian migrants to Australia 4000 years ago probably spoke some kind of Proto-Dravidian…

:-)

That agrees with what I know. I know a purebred Dravidian who looks half aboriginal.

I’m quite surprised at the recent date of 4000 years. And it does tie in neatly with the dingo date.

I’m not surprised by Burketown. A lot more influences travelled south from Cape York than travelled north from Tasmania. Further, the further north in Australia you go the higher the density of Aboriginal population and the more languages and tribes.

Does this mean that Aborigines haven’t talked to one another for 4,000 years? Or have been in a state of permanent war for 4,000 years?

How reliable is the date of 4,000 years? And somebody mentioned Y chromosome results?

Aboriginal people hadn’t really started inhabiting the FNQ rainforests until about 5,000 years.

mollwollfumble said:

dv said:

roughbarked said:

So what language did these people speak for the previous 50 or 60 thousand years?

Well what do you mean? The Indian migrants to Australia 4000 years ago probably spoke some kind of Proto-Dravidian…

:-)

That agrees with what I know. I know a purebred Dravidian who looks half aboriginal.

I’m quite surprised at the recent date of 4000 years. And it does tie in neatly with the dingo date.

I’m not surprised by Burketown. A lot more influences travelled south from Cape York than travelled north from Tasmania. Further, the further north in Australia you go the higher the density of Aboriginal population and the more languages and tribes.

Does this mean that Aborigines haven’t talked to one another for 4,000 years? Or have been in a state of permanent war for 4,000 years?

How reliable is the date of 4,000 years? And somebody mentioned Y chromosome results?

Perhaps many had strict rules about language preservation after this 4000 year old language started to dominate

Cymek said:

mollwollfumble said:

dv said:

Well what do you mean? The Indian migrants to Australia 4000 years ago probably spoke some kind of Proto-Dravidian…

:-)

That agrees with what I know. I know a purebred Dravidian who looks half aboriginal.

I’m quite surprised at the recent date of 4000 years. And it does tie in neatly with the dingo date.

I’m not surprised by Burketown. A lot more influences travelled south from Cape York than travelled north from Tasmania. Further, the further north in Australia you go the higher the density of Aboriginal population and the more languages and tribes.

Does this mean that Aborigines haven’t talked to one another for 4,000 years? Or have been in a state of permanent war for 4,000 years?

How reliable is the date of 4,000 years? And somebody mentioned Y chromosome results?

Perhaps many had strict rules about language preservation after this 4000 year old language started to dominate

Do we know for sure how many newer incursions of people and languages occurred in the past 10,000 years?

roughbarked said:

Cymek said:

mollwollfumble said:

:-)

That agrees with what I know. I know a purebred Dravidian who looks half aboriginal.

I’m quite surprised at the recent date of 4000 years. And it does tie in neatly with the dingo date.

I’m not surprised by Burketown. A lot more influences travelled south from Cape York than travelled north from Tasmania. Further, the further north in Australia you go the higher the density of Aboriginal population and the more languages and tribes.

Does this mean that Aborigines haven’t talked to one another for 4,000 years? Or have been in a state of permanent war for 4,000 years?

How reliable is the date of 4,000 years? And somebody mentioned Y chromosome results?

Perhaps many had strict rules about language preservation after this 4000 year old language started to dominate

Do we know for sure how many newer incursions of people and languages occurred in the past 10,000 years?

It wouldn’t be easy to check

OK, a bit more for that idea.

“The very first people in the area were neither the Djab wurrung not the Jardwadjali. Although possibly physically similar the first people were culturally different to their successors. According to linguists, the Djab wurrung and Jardwadjali language is probably less than 5,000 years old, and the mechanism for a new language is usually a new people.

The Djab wurrung and Jardwadjali probably arose out of the social upheavla accompanying rising seas, a more hospitable climate and an explosion in food and material resources at the end of the Ice Age. The Djab wurrung and Jardwadjali always referred to their predecessors as the Old People – so that is what we will call those who lived through the last Ice Age.”

From The People of Gariwerd by Gib Wettenhall. There are several pages. But apparently the evidence suggests there were the Old People during the Ice Age and the people here now were another wave.

buffy said:

OK, a bit more for that idea.

“The very first people in the area were neither the Djab wurrung not the Jardwadjali. Although possibly physically similar the first people were culturally different to their successors. According to linguists, the Djab wurrung and Jardwadjali language is probably less than 5,000 years old, and the mechanism for a new language is usually a new people.

The Djab wurrung and Jardwadjali probably arose out of the social upheavla accompanying rising seas, a more hospitable climate and an explosion in food and material resources at the end of the Ice Age. The Djab wurrung and Jardwadjali always referred to their predecessors as the Old People – so that is what we will call those who lived through the last Ice Age.”

From The People of Gariwerd by Gib Wettenhall. There are several pages. But apparently the evidence suggests there were the Old People during the Ice Age and the people here now were another wave.

Very good. i’d mark your paper up on that.

Recent DNA evidence suggested that the Aboriginal and probably the language groups did not move around very much and have remained largely in their country. However, migrations to Australia are thought to have come via PNG, which like Australia has a considerable number of native languages. I have not as yet had time to read the OP, but as there ware a number of cultural disruptions around 3 to 6 thousand years ago something dramatic must have caused it.

PermeateFree said:

Recent DNA evidence suggested that the Aboriginal and probably the language groups did not move around very much and have remained largely in their country. However, migrations to Australia are thought to have come via PNG, which like Australia has a considerable number of native languages. I have not as yet had time to read the OP, but as there ware a number of cultural disruptions around 3 to 6 thousand years ago something dramatic must have caused it.

I’d expect that internal trading was well set up by then and new stuff arrived mainly from the north. As mollwoll suggested, the dingo was in there.

I am not wholly convinced, as it is contrary to circumstance and other studies concerning Aboriginal occupation. I would say there is a great deal more to it than what is expressed in the OP article and others on the internet. The idea of a people who have lived in an area for tens of thousands of years just giving up their language to adopt another is very difficult to comprehend. It would seem more logical that certain words were incorporated into their language, in the same way scientific terminology expands the vocabulary of languages today, and of which the rapid spread of technology of the time would require.

The expansion of this new technology would I think be the reason for the movement of new people into the long established territories of the older residents. People could not just wander where they liked, they needed permission of the land owners, but if their technology could improve conditions for them, then that would seem to be an ideal way for a newcomer to gain the required permission. Surely the language would follow these people and less likely to preempt them.

I think there will be comment from various professional workers in the field that may help tie the many loose ends together.