SYDNEY-All indigenous languages in Australia descend from a single common tongue, a study revealed Wednesday in findings that shed new light on the country’s cultural history. More than 250 languages were spoken at the time of British settlement in 1788 and after three years investigating their origins, researchers said they had finally proven a long-held theory that they all derive from so-called Proto-Australian. The existence of a common parent language gives further weight to the idea that all Aboriginal Australians descend from a single group that landed on the continent at least 65,000 years ago, and spread out over the following millenia, becoming ethnically and linguistically distinct. The project used a standard method in historical linguistics to establish whether similarity between languages was due to inheritance from a common ancestor, as opposed to transfer from one language to another through human contact. Western Sydney University chief investigator Robert Mailhammer said the findings repeatedly revealed similarities between languages that were not in contact. “We discovered that the sounds of words we compared showed recurrent systematic differences and similarities across a set of languages that are spread out in a geographically discontinuous way,” he said.

“This makes it very unlikely that they are the result of chance or language contact.”

He added that the findings pointed to Proto-Australian being spoken about 12,000 years ago.

“This raises more questions around how the languages spread and how the linguistic findings connect to the genetic findings,” he said.

University of Newcastle historical linguist Mark Harvey said he hoped the research, published in the linguistics journal Diachronica, would enhance the understanding of Australian and human history.

“Until now, it was speculated that Australia was significantly more linguistically diverse than somewhere like Europe, because it had not been proven that all Australian languages actually stemmed from the same lineage,” he said.

“This is the first demonstration that all Australian languages are part of the same language family.”

He said this language likely spread across Australia from a small area in the country’s north that was first populated thousands of years ago.

“This spread is likely to have been carried out by at least some population movement whose material and genetic traces have remained somewhat elusive,” he added.

“However, with further interdisciplinary research, this new linguistic evidence is likely to give us a more precise reconstruction of Australian prehistory from what is currently known.”

Only around 120 of the original 250 tongues are still spoken today, with many at risk of being lost as elders die off without passing on the language to younger generations. </s> Indigenous languages come from just one common ancestor, researchers say

After decades of debate, Australian researchers say they have finally proven a theory that all Indigenous languages descend from one common language.

Experts from Western Sydney University and the University of Newcastle have spent three years investigating the origins of Indigenous languages in Australia.

Their findings have been published in the historical linguistics journal, Diachronica.

Western Sydney University Associate Professor of linguistics Robert Mailhammer said there were about 250 Australian Indigenous languages spoken at the time of European settlement.

"The question that we asked was did all of those languages come from a common source," he said.

"Our team have been the first to be able to demonstrate this through the evidence gathered."

Linguists have long theorised that Indigenous languages all stem from one ancestor language, dubbed Proto-Australian.

The researchers studied Indigenous languages across the country, discovering the sounds of words showed recurrent systematic differences and similarities.

The team said its findings suggest Proto-Australian would have been spoken about 12,000 years ago, suggesting the languages recorded today were not spoken by the first inhabitants of Australia.

"We think the language would have spread from areas in the north [of Australia] and then all across Australia, either in one big wave or in two smaller waves all around the continent," Dr Mailhammer said.

"The interesting question for us is why did this one language spread and why did it supersede all of the other languages that were there?"

'Can we do it again?'

The research has been welcomed by other experts in the field, including the University of Newcastle's Dr Ray Kelly.

Dr Kelly is a speaker of the Dunghutti language from the Macleay Valley region of northern NSW, and said Indigenous languages had long been viewed in isolation.

"It throws up this perception that our languages are distinct, they don't communicate to each other and they have no relationship," he said.

"This other idea suggests something quite different."

Dr Kelly said the research may be useful in demonstrating a sense of connection rather than disconnection in Indigenous history.

The Australian Research Council project is wrapping up, with researchers using their findings to compile a book detailing the sounds and structure of the Proto-Australian language. </s> After decades of debate, Australian researchers say they have finally proven a theory that all Indigenous languages descend from one common language that would have been spoken about 12,000 years ago.

Proof that indigenous languages all come from the same root. (Credit: ABC)

After decades of debate, Australian researchers say they have finally proven a theory that all Indigenous languages descend from one common language.

Experts from Western Sydney University and the University of Newcastle have spent three years investigating the origins of Indigenous languages in Australia.

Their findings have been published in the historical linguistics journal, Diachronica.

Western Sydney University Associate Professor of linguistics Robert Mailhammer said there were about 250 Australian Indigenous languages spoken at the time of European settlement.

"The question that we asked was did all of those languages come from a common source," he said.

"Our team have been the first to be able to demonstrate this through the evidence gathered."

Linguists have long theorised that Indigenous languages all stem from one ancestor language, dubbed Proto-Australian.

The researchers studied Indigenous languages across the country, discovering the sounds of words showed recurrent systematic differences and similarities.

The team said its findings suggest Proto-Australian would have been spoken about 12,000 years ago, suggesting the languages recorded today were not spoken by the first inhabitants of Australia.

"We think the language would have spread from areas in the north [of Australia] and then all across Australia, either in one big wave or in two smaller waves all around the continent," Dr Mailhammer said.

"The interesting question for us is why did this one language spread and why did it supersede all of the other languages that were there?"

'Can we do it again?'

The research has been welcomed by other experts in the field, including the University of Newcastle's Dr Ray Kelly.

Dr Kelly is a speaker of the Dunghutti language from the Macleay Valley region of northern NSW, and said Indigenous languages had long been viewed in isolation.

"It throws up this perception that our languages are distinct, they don't communicate to each other and they have no relationship," he said.

"This other idea suggests something quite different."

Dr Kelly said the research might be able to help Indigenous languages survive in the modern world, as new generations could theoretically borrow missing pieces of their ancestral tongues from neighbouring regions' dialects.

"It says to Indigenous people, if we do actually come from a single family language, then we're in a good position because we've got neighbouring languages that are doing better," he said.

"Can we learn from each other and borrow from each other which we would have done naturally over the last many thousands of years. Can we do it again?

"As Indigenous people we have to be involved in that deep analysis."

The Australian Research Council project is wrapping up, with researchers using their findings to compile a book detailing the sounds and structure of the Proto-Australian language. </s> The existence of a common parent language gives further weight to the idea that all Aboriginal Australians descend from a single group that landed on the continent at least 65,000 years ago, and spread out over the following millenia, becoming ethnically and linguistically distinct.

The project used a standard method in historical linguistics to establish whether similarity between languages was due to inheritance from a common ancestor, as opposed to transfer from one language to another through human contact.

Western Sydney University chief investigator Robert Mailhammer said the findings repeatedly revealed similarities between languages that were not in contact.

"We discovered that the sounds of words we compared showed recurrent systematic differences and similarities across a set of languages that are spread out in a geographically discontinuous way," he said.

"This makes it very unlikely that they are the result of chance or language contact."

He added that the findings pointed to Proto-Australian being spoken about 12,000 years ago. </s> All Australian indigenous languages derived from one common language, NSW researchers have discovered.

A three-year study by the University of Newcastle and Western Sydney University looked at whether languages were similar because they had the same ancestor, or because of human contact or chance.

WSU associate professor Robert Mailhammer said the results showed there were repeated similarities between languages that were not in contact, and that the language "family" most likely began in a small area in northern Australia.

"We discovered that the sounds of words we compared showed recurrent systematic differences and similarities across a set of languages that are spread out in a geographically discontinuous way," he said.

"Which makes it very unlikely that they are the result of chance or language contact," Prof Mailhammer said.

There were more than 250 indigenous languages across Australia at the time of European settlement in 1788, compared with about 120 spoken today, according to the Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies.

The research also found that Australian indigenous languages spread after the end of the last ice age, about 10,000-12,000 years ago.

The findings have been published in Diachronica, a journal of historical linguistics. </s> Image copyright Getty Images

Researchers in Australia say they have traced the country's indigenous languages back to a single, common tongue.

The languages are all derived from a mother tongue, known as Proto-Australian, that was spoken about 10,000 years ago, according to a new study.

Linguists have long debated the subject in Australia.

More than 200 languages were spoken at the time of British settlement in 1788.

The research, published in the Diachronica linguistics journal, is the first to prove that all of those languages came from the same family, said linguists at the University of Newcastle, Australia and Western Sydney University.

"Until now, it was speculated that Australia was significantly more linguistically diverse than somewhere like Europe, because it had not been proven that all Australian languages actually stemmed from the same lineage," said Associate Prof Mark Harvey from the University of Newcastle, Australia.

Although an estimated 120 indigenous languages still exist, only about 20 are actively spoken today, he said.

Geographical distance

Researchers said they found "recurrent" and "systematic" traits in the sounds of words among the languages.

"[We were] essentially looking for consistent similarities, like how there's a link between 'good' and 'gut' in English and German," Associate Prof Harvey told the BBC.

He said such similarities were found in the basic vocabulary of languages "that might be 100km (60 miles) apart" in terms of where they were being spoken.

"[It] makes it very unlikely that they are the result of chance or [subsequent] language contact," said Associate Prof Robert Mailhammer from Western Sydney University.

Diversity in the north

Researchers said the language family had spread and diversified from a small area in northern Australia.

"Where you have the greatest diversity is where the original forms [of language] were, so your standard starting point would be the Kimberleys [in Western Australia] and the Top End [upper Northern Territory]," he said.

However, he said the findings did not fit well with existing understandings of how populations had moved across the continent.

People movements are usually regarded as key factors in spreading languages, Associate Prof Harvey said.

"So there are still lots of questions about how we understand the pre-history of Australia," he said.

Last year, scientists found evidence to suggest that indigenous Australians have lived on the continent for at least 65,000 years.

Aboriginal Australians are believed to be the world's oldest continuous civilisation. </s> All of the indigenous languages spoken by Australia's Aboriginal peoples branched out from one language that was spoken in a small area in northern Australia around 10,000 years ago, new research has suggested

Around 250 distinct indigenous languages were spoken in Australia when European explorers first landed in the continent in the late 18th century.

Anthropologists had long speculated that Australia was significantly more linguistically diverse than places like Europe, as there was no evidence to suggest that the indigenous languages emerged from a common source.

However, a three-year study of the Aboriginal languages by researchers from the University of Newcastle and Western Sydney University has now revealed that they are derived from one language: Proto-Australian.

Researchers came to this conclusion after unearthing recurrent similarities between languages that were not in geographic contact.

"We discovered that the sounds of words we compared showed recurrent systematic differences and similarities across a set of languages that are spread out in a geographically discontinuous way – which makes it very unlikely that they are the result of chance or language contact," said Robert Mailhammer from Western Sydney University.

"While a multitude of Australian Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander languages were spoken at the time of European settlement, the findings also imply that indigenous Australian languages only spread after the end of the last ice age, some 10,000-12,000 years ago."

The language family is believed to have spread from a small area in northern Australia through population movement.

Australia's Aboriginal peoples are believed to be the world's oldest continuous civilization, with archaeological records suggesting that they have been living in the continent for at least 65,000 years.

"This is the first demonstration that all Australian languages are part of the same language family," said historical linguist Mark Harvey.

"With further interdisciplinary research, this new linguistic evidence is likely to give us a more precise reconstruction of Australian prehistory from what is currently known."

The findings are published in the linguistics journal Diachronica. </s> As Noel Pearson and others worked on the wording of the Statement from the Heart, into the early hours of Friday morning, the Cape York leader found himself reflecting on the last time a huge effort was mounted to reach a kind of compact between black and white Australia.

It was 10 years ago, in the lead-up to the 40th anniversary of the 1967 referendum, when he and Marcia Langton and Patrick Dodson, the man known as the father of reconciliation, tried to secure a breakthrough moment with a prime minister whose time was running out.

"We thought that in the twilight of the Howard government there might be some softening of the heart and he might seek to remedy his legacy in relation to Indigenous Australians," Pearson explained on ABC radio.

The enterprise fizzled through lack of political will, though John Howard did make a headline-grabbing election-eve gesture: a promise to hold a referendum to recognise Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders in the constitution as the first Australians if he was returned.

If you count that as the beginning of the conversation, the national debate about constitution change has now been going on for as long as the campaign that preceded the 1967 referendum.

The difference this time is that, until now, Indigenous Australians have had very different ideas about what form recognition should take, with a strong body of opinion preferring to go down the treaty path.

Now, on the 50th anniversary, after the first ever national Indigenous constitutional convention, a two-track strategy has emerged that could be the making of Pearson's "noble compromise", one that hits the "sweet spot" between ambition and realism, and between conservatism and liberalism.

The very big surprise is that the idea of recognition for its own sake has been blown out of the water and replaced by something potentially much more substantial, more ambitious and more fraught with danger: recognition in the form of a First Nations Voice enshrined in the constitution.

This is a direct response to what the convention declaration calls the "torment of powerlessness" that has been all pervasive in Indigenous communities and grown almost exponentially in recent years.

The aspiration for treaty is accommodated in the second prong of the strategy: the setting up of a Makarrata commission to supervise a process of agreement between governments and First Nations and facilitate truth-telling about history.

Makarrata is a word in the language of the Yolngu people of north-eastern Arnhem Land that means a coming together after a struggle, facing the facts of wrongs and living again in peace. As Pearson told me: "I think it is a very good thing that we are using one of our own ancient languages to describe the kind of reconciliation that we are seeking."

This is a direct response to the will of 12 Indigenous-only dialogues and the three-day convention at Uluru. "Overwhelmingly around the country, people are wanting to negotiate a proper settlement between us all. People want treaty, they don't want acknowledgement," says Pat Anderson, co-chair of the Referendum Council.

So what happens now? Pearson says the process is at base camp, with a long, arduous trek across a vast continent to come – and he is dead right.

The statement now goes to the full Referendum Council where there will be surprise among some that certain options for constitution change, including a recognition that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people are the original owners of the land, have not been supported.

The convention and the dialogues have rejected symbolism, but symbolism is important, as the formal apology to the Stolen Generations showed, so long as it is accompanied by actions of substance.

Then the council will send a report to Malcolm Turnbull and Bill Shorten, paving the way for negotiations. The dangers cannot be discounted.

Among them are reservations already expressed about enshrining an Indigenous voice in the constitution by politicians, including the first Aboriginal member of the House of Representatives, Ken Wyatt.

The response of the hard right is predictable: if one section of the population is given its own voice in the constitution, what about other groups? The answer is that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander are special, having been here for 60,000 or more years.

There are also the practical questions, including this one: what guarantee is there that Parliament will listen?

These dangers need to be weighed against the work that has been done, including by the Recognise campaign, to build community support for constitutional change – support that is as strong among conservatives as it is among progressives, and as strong among the old as the young.

The dangers should also be assessed in the context of one simple proposition, that what is being sought is neither revolutionary nor unreasonable.

As the declaration says: "We seek constitutional reforms to empower our people and take their rightful place in our own country.

"When we have power over our destiny our children will flourish. They will walk in two worlds, their culture will be a gift to their country."

Hilary Charlesworth, the doctoral supervisor of Megan Davis, one of the key contributors at the convention, once told her "the most important thing we can do as legal scholars is to exercise our imagination, to imagine the world as a better place and to set about achieving that".

If the members of the Referendum Council, the politicians, the Indigenous negotiators and, ultimately, the country need a guiding principle as the debate moves from base camp, they could hardly find a better one. </s> 'We were never Australians back then': From being counted to being heard

"We were outcasts; we were never Australians back then."

My father was remembering a time when Indigenous people felt locked out of Australia.

His was a hard life of exclusion and discrimination.

I have revisited that time in a special program for ABC television marking the 50th anniversary of the 1967 referendum.

It remains the most successful referendum in Australian history.

Like great moments in our past it has taken on the quality of myth.

It did not make Aboriginal people citizens, we already were. Although certainly did not enjoy full citizenship privileges.

It did not give Aboriginal people the vote, most already enjoyed that fundamental right.

But it was a powerfully symbolic moment. It struck from our nation's founding document, the Constitution, a section that excluded the first peoples of this land from being counted among its population.

It also allowed the federal parliament, for the first time, to make laws for Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders.

It was part of a wave of activism and reform. Old style segregation was being dismantled and the Aboriginal political voice was being heard.

It opened the doors of opportunity to education and employment.

The doctrine of Terra Nullius — that this was an empty land free to be claimed by the British — has been overturned.

That historic 1992 Mabo High Court decision led to recognition of Native Title, increasing the footprint of Aboriginal owned in land in Australia.

But for all the success, 1967 remains a victory half won.

Indigenous people were counted, now they are demanding to be heard.

Indigenous leaders have been meeting this week at the spiritual heart of Australia — Uluru — to try to reach a consensus on the next phase of political reform.

It is referred to broadly as constitutional recognition, but it is much more than that.

What may originally have been conceived as a symbolic gesture of acknowledgment of Indigenous antiquity and culture — some poetic words — has become a catalyst for a more definitive settlement.

After a series of meetings around Australia, Indigenous communities have made clear a preference for substance over symbolism.

A range of options have been discussed including creating autonomous regions, negotiating treaties, or establishing a national representative body to have a voice in Indigenous government policy.

It is ambitious and it is a test of Australia's political maturity.

Can our constitutional democracy encompass the demands of its most impoverished minority?

Arguments for and against are already being made.

I can see shortcomings in the arguments of both sides.

Many Indigenous claims are predicated on redressing a historical legacy of neglect and discrimination.

It lies at the heart of the deplorable plight of so many of the first peoples today. Indigenous people are, as a group, the most impoverished and imprisoned in our nation.

But an argument for lasting political change cannot be based purely on socio-economic inequality.

First, many of the people prosecuting that case are themselves — like me — privileged, and educated. We have closed the gap.

Australians would be entitled to ask why we need "special treatment".

Philosophers Duncan Ivison, Paul Patton and Will Saunders in their book Political Theory and the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, write:

"Linking self-government rights to degrees of suffering is problematic. The case for remedial rights depends on there being a temporary measure intended to address specific disadvantage caused by historic injustice. But Indigenous claims appeal to 'inherent', not temporary sovereignty."

Put simply: Indigenous people have rights that are more fixed than a person's current socio-economic status.

Native Title, arising out of the Mabo ruling, is one example.

Today, more than a third of the Australian land mass is under some form of Indigenous title.

It also has broader implications for Indigenous relationship with Australia.

Legal scholar Jeremy Webber has written that "Mabo initiates a process of mutual adjustment that will continue long into the future".

The push for constitutional reform, treaties and recognition is part of that adjustment.

As Webber points out, the Mabo decision is not about recognising two utterly different spheres — Indigenous and non-Indigenous — but a "parallel process" of "restructuring the relationship".

Indigenous Australians as the first peoples have a unique status and heritage. But, how does Australia incorporate that into its democracy?

There are those who dismiss the idea out of hand. Those opponents of reform claim acknowledging Indigenous group rights is antithetical to our liberal democratic traditions of the primacy of the individual.

It is a serious objection that demands serious consideration because it goes to the fundamental question of the primacy of the nation state and the values that define it.

It asks: what does our country stand for?

Australia's history traverses the dispossession and exclusion of Indigenous people and a broader white Australia policy to keep out "coloured races", to today's general acceptance of what Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull has called the world's most successful multi-cultural society.

Australia, unlike some other nations, is not defined by race or ethnicity. We do not have a state religion.

Diversity can enrich society but it can also challenge the idea of national unity.

American political scientist William Connelly says the nation is "an imagination of unity … it never simply exists in the present".

One of the founding thinkers of liberalism, John Stuart Mill, also asked the question: what is a nation?

He says it exists where people share common sympathies and unite under the same government.

Clearly, where there is inherent tension between groups it is more difficult to locate those common sympathies and unity.

Philosopher John Rawls spoke about the idea of mutuality and co-operation to achieve justice and fairness.

Society, he said, was a "fair system of cooperation over time, from one generation to the next".

The problem of political liberalism is to define this idea of political justice in our constitutional democracy — where minorities demand to be heard.

The challenge, he said, was to create a system that a "plurality of reasonable doctrines, both religious and non-religious, liberal and non-liberal, may freely endorse, and so live by and come to understand its virtues".

When people feel represented in a democracy then they can also feel allegiance to that democracy.

There are 10,000 distinct peoples in the world — defined around language, racial, ethnic, and cultural bonds — squeezed into fewer than 200 nations.

These are national minorities or stateless nations. Think of the Inuit and Quebecois in Canada, the Sami in Scandinavia, New Zealand Maori or Catalans in Spain, Scots in Britain.

Clearly there is going to be tension. Often this has sparked ethno-cultural conflict, one of the main causes of violence around the world.

Political philosophers like Canada's Will Kymlicka argue that classic liberalism has the potential to peacefully incorporate these demands.

He makes the point that the suppression of group rights — in our case indigenous rights — necessarily erodes the freedom and liberty of individuals belonging to that group.

It follows, he argues, that recognition of group rights can help release and empower individuals to pursue what we see as the "good life".

His critics, though, say Kymlicka proposes a form of "ethnic nationalism" akin to racial segregation.

Rival philosopher David Hollinger says there can be two kinds of multiculturalism: either a pluralist model where people cling to fixed group identities, or a cosmopolitan model that allows people to change shape, to shift across boundaries and adopt hybrid identities.

This the classic "melting-pot" idea. It works successfully for many migrants who merge into a dominant culture in their adopted home.

But it doesn't answer the question about the enduring, inherent rights, of — in our case — Indigenous people.

Individual Indigenous people may choose to pursue different lifestyles and identities but Australian law recognises unique Indigenous claims that require resolution.

Indigenous people are seeking political architecture right now — constitutional reform, treaties — that provide mechanisms for resolving disputes and allowing Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples greater input into policy that directly affects their lives and communities.

The opponents of constitutional change also reject the idea of treaties.

Because, unlike North America or New Zealand, Australia did not sign treaties at contact. Trying to retrofit a model that works is problematic, but possible.

The classic rebuff is that a nation can't have a treaty with itself — that it would recognise separatism.

There is a clash between the ultimate sovereignty of the Commonwealth and the position of some Indigenous people that they retain a sovereignty never ceded.

This is contested space, but not insurmountable.

Treaties are ultimately negotiations and agreements and can take many different forms.

Victoria and South Australia are negotiating treaties and Western Australia signed a compensation and land deal with Noongar people that many say is a treaty in all but name.

Another argument mounted against recognising Indigenous rights is that the Constitution should be effectively "colour-blind", free of any mention of race.

But Australia's Constitution has never been colour-blind.

"In reckoning the numbers of the people of the Commonwealth, or of a state or other part of the Commonwealth, Aboriginal natives shall not be counted."

Section 51 (xxvi) empowered the Commonwealth to make laws for "The people of any race, other than the Aboriginal race in any State, for whom it is deemed necessary to make special laws".

This section has been commonly referred to as the "race power".

Removing or amending those sections were the focus of the 1967 referendum.

Then Indigenous people brought the Australian public with them.

The political climate today is much more fractious and fractured. The stakes for the first peoples of Australia are much higher and the demands much more substantial.

Duncan Ivison says recognition of Australia's first peoples needs to be seen as an ongoing transformation in the relations between Indigenous people and the state.

Indigenous leaders are seeking what they have called a "final settlement", to finish the unfinished business.

Fifty years ago, my father said he did not feel like a citizen; today Indigenous people are still testing the limits of that citizenship.
The linguistics journal Diachronica publishes Australian research implying that a tracement of the country's indigenous languages can be made back to a single, common language known as Proto-Australian, which was spoken around 10,000-years ago.