Dr. Chris Illert's Proto-Australian Aboriginal Language

| Origins: Australian Aborigines | Chris Illert CV | Proto-Australian Language | Traditional Aboriginal Languages 2021 |

The world's oldest language - Proto-Australian

Based on the research and discoveries of Dr. Chris Illert

Compiled by Michael Organ

28 February 2022

Abstract

This paper outlines the discoveries of Dr. Chris Illert during the 1990s and early 2000s in regard to the Proto-Australian language based on Aboriginal Australian - a language which can be inferred to date back in deep-time to approximately 65,000 years ago. As the oldest surviving and still spoken language on the planet, it represents a veritable Rosetta Stone (i.e. idealised Proto-World language) in regard to the development of modern languages. Proto-Australia is significant, despite the fact that it does not include a written equivalent and is nowhere to be found in a Google 'oldest language' search, wherein such a search only results in recent languages (i.e. less than 5,000 years old) with written equivalents.

Contents

1. Language and origins
2. English v. Australian Aboriginal 
3. Connections and discovery
4. The research process 
5. A root word-based language 
6. Significance 
7. Structure 
8. Examples 
9. Entropy - Applying borders in space and time 
10. Where to from here? 
11. References
12. Select Bibliography of Chris Illert

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

1 - Language and origins 

The origins of the human race is open to question, with science constantly updating what we know and can surmise, especially in the light of DNA analyses applied to traditional archaeological methods. The traditional model of a single dispersal Out-of-Africa event by Homo sapiens approximately 65,000 years ago is now out of date, replaced by multiple into and out of Africa events. It is also the subject of debate due to ongoing science-based archaeological and genetic studies, and discoveries outside of Africa, such as in Asia, Australasia, and the Americas. Christian Creationists continue to hold dear to the idea that humanity's timeline is Bible-based and less than 10,000 years old, from dinosaurs to Denisovans. What we can say is that the origin of Homo sapiens goes back at least 400,000 years, and hominids including Homo erectus at least 2 million years. Within that time-frame there are obviously immense complexities, including the evolution of other species such as Neanderthals and Denisovans, resulting in the ultimate, present-day domination of a single species, in the form of Homo sapiens. The DNA of both latter groups is found in present-day humans such as the Australian Aborigines. The aforementioned advances in science are giving rise to almost daily updates on what we know and how we interpret the data at hand, both physical and statistical. In amongst this, and largely forgotten, the Australian Aborigines believe they have inhabited the continent since the beginning of time and the origins of their Dreaming, or their cultural heritage and lore. How does this stack up with the science?

Australia, like Tierra del Fuego on the southern tip of South America, is very much at the end of the line when it comes to discussion of, and scientific investigation into, the Out-of-Africa dispersal model. Both were geographically isolated in the extreme, and largely ignored in scientific studies up until recent times. Most commentators place the origins of the Australian Aborigines within the 65,000 years ago dispersal event. But the latest studies indicate their presence goes back 130,000 years, as does that of their near southeast Asian neighbours, with a common Denisovan genetic pool extending out to the indigenous people of the Americas (Thompson 2015, Lewis 2016, Price 2021, Silva 2021). In fact, it is now posited that there have been a number of Out-of-Africa events. It is known, for example, that there was one around 200,000 years ago, along with various Into Africa events wherein Neanderthal DNA was mixed back into the African gene pool. Perhaps most significantly, the presence of humanoids outside of Africa, such as Homo erectus and the Neanderthal and Denisovans, suggests that habitation in other parts of the world is ancient, and not simply a case of the arrival of Homo sapiens at some uninhabited locality (Everett 2018). Hominids were present in Indonesia, for example, 1.2 million years ago. The mixing of hominid species has therefore been widespread and over long periods of time.

So where does language fit into this complex and evolving picture of human habitation and evolution? 

It almost does not fit, and appears largely neglected by the archaeological fraternity. However, studies into ancient anatomical development of the voice box have revealed important aspects of the development of the ability to speak. As a result, the more we know, and the more that science reveals, the more we realise we don’t know, and that the actuality of the past is much more complex than our present scenarios suggest. They cannot, therefore, be relied upon to inform us of the ultimate truth regarding species ages and the processes of physiological development. They can merely suggest it, or point to possible proofs, while we wait for the latest update to refine or change what we know. The same applies to the question of the development, or evolution, of language. When and how did it develop?

As of 2023 there are stated to be approximately 6,500 registered languages on earth, with the number of dialects and variants almost limitless. Historians of language have revealed its evolution back to approximately 5,000 years ago, based on studies of the written word and development of so-called proto-languages. However, language existed before writing, and we therefore need to travel back more than a mere 5,000 years.

Once again, the religious perspective has clouded the issue. The Biblical Tower of Babel story and Book of Genesis suggest that the original language of Adam and Eve was split at specific points in time. Variants arose and there were associations as in a family tree. Reconstructions came to a dead-end several thousand years back, in the form of languages such as proto-Mayan 5 kya, proto-Indo-European 5 kya, proto-Austronesian 6 kya, and proto-Afroasiatic 10 kya. Joseph Greenberg used proto-languages and mass comparison to create Eurasiatic and Amerind. In the 1990s Merritt Ruhlan, in his The Origin of Language, compared vocabularies and constructed 27 proto-words for what he called Proto-World. However, this was declared to be fringe-linguistics / pseudo-science.

Tower of Babel vs. Linguistics - the quest for the first language, NativLang, 3 December 2016, YouTube, duration: 5.20 minutes.

As humans have been around for much longer than 5,000 years, as noted above, language obviously developed over an extended period prior to the first appearance of written forms. This is a simple fact that is often ignore in discussions around the origin and development of language. According to Professor David L. Everett, human language and communication can be traced back to Homo erectus, and not just Homo sapiens.

So what of a language which is said to be 65,000k years or more old, as Dr. Chris Illert asserts with regards to the Australian Aboriginal language? Well, that is the problem, especially for the traditional linguists amongst the scientific fraternity. Research to date by global linguists has not done anything in that regard, as far as this author is aware. Like Google, they largely stick to the 5,000 year barrier. Illert's Proto-Australian Aboriginal language is therefore ground-breaking. But in order to understand and appreciate its significance, we need to provide some background to the study of language in regard to what it is and how it evolves. What, then, is the basic structure of language as we know it?

Languages, such as English, are primarily made up of words, usually strung together in grammatically structured sentences. These words are linguistically known as lexemes, which form the basic units of language. And words are composed of sound known as phonemes, which may or may not be combined into small units called morphemes which, in turn, are combined to form the lexemes. So we have:

• Phonemes - sounds - e.g. i
• Morphemes - small units of sound - e.g. it
• Lexemes - words - e.g. its

Confused? Well, don’t worry - hereon in we will simply refer to words and sounds, and leave the phonetic complexities and “emes” to the linguists. 

Whilst the above analysis is generally true for most languages, it is not entirely true for the language which lies at the heart of present-day Australian Aboriginal languages and which is the oldest living language on the planet according to Illert. But we will get to that ….. First, let us consider the problem of the origin of language and languages. As Professor Michael Corballis noted in a 2018 TedX talk:

“Language is probably the hardest problem in science. Nobody really knows how it works, and nobody knows where it came from.”

[Reference: Michael Corballis, The Origin and Evolution of Language [video], TEDx Auckland, YouTube, 15 August 2018, duration: 17.04 minutes. URL: https://youtu.be/nd5cklw6d6Q.]

According to Noam Chomsky, 90,000 years ago language was created and spread, in a single, Biblical-type event. The Darwiniam theory of evolution rejects that and suggests that language would have evolved, along with gestures, over time. A section of the human brain actually evolved to focus on language, as did the physiological structure of the airways. This may have taken place over 7 million years, leading up to Homo erectus and Homo sapiens from c.2 million years ago. Chomsky states it simply came out of Africa 90k years ago. Therefore, the origins of language are either stated to be:

(1) Biblical, Alien (i.e., off planet) or Chomski-ish, i.e., the result of a divine or other-worldly intervention which occurred approximately 90,000 years ago and wherein all language originated from a single individual Homo sapien and were subsequently dispersed in Tower of Babel-like events; or,

(2) Darwinian, i.e., evolutionary and science-based, in that they evolved over time, specifically during the last 200,000 years and in association with the development of the human species, primarily Homo sapiens, though it is likely that other hominid species also developed languages contemporaneously.

Scientists have identified specific physiological factors, such as the presence of the FOXP2 gene and structural evolution of the Homo sapien voice box approximately 400,000 years ago, which have helped facilitate the ability to speak and learn language. 

[References: The Polyglot Files, Where Did Language Come From? (The Origins of Language) [video], YouTube, 21 April 2018, duration: 10.03 minutes. URL: https://youtu.be/wcP_C5AHB6E. Speech began between 100-200 kya. The language gene - FOXP2. Source of languages: 1. Divine. 2. Aliens. Aboriginal origin story - Rev. A. Meyer, The manners and customs of the Aborigines of the Encounter Bay tribe - feeding on dead corpse re origins. Max Meuller 1861 theories: Bow-wow theory imitating animals; pooh-pooh theory emotional responses; Ding-dong theory world vibrations; Ye-he-ho and Ta-ta. Etc. Chomsky. EXTRA: TAMIL video - R. Mathivan said it was 200K years old.]

This disregards the fact that other hominid species, such as Homo erectus, could also speak and, most importantly, communicate. The Darwinian evolutionary theory is the one most commonly now accepted, as it also explains what has happened over time, and why we now have some 6,500 languages in existence on planet earth. The evolutionary theory also accommodates the tree and branches analogy. It explains why English is a relatively modern language, only about 1,400 years old, and why Illert’s Proto-Australian Aboriginal language, in turn, can be cited as the oldest living language on the planet, at approximately 65,000 years old. But here is where the controversy starts.

If one goes to Google and types in the question: What is the oldest language? you are informed that the answer is Tamil, from Ceylon.

[Reference: JuLingo, What is the oldest language in the world?, YouTube, 1 November 2020, duration: 9.19 minutes. URL: https://youtu.be/6tpAANSGN2o.]

Why is this so?

It is based on the fact that R. Mathivan, author of the Tamil dictionary, said it was that old, but provided no evidence. International linguistic research has subsequently identified that Tamil is actually no more than 5,000 years old, along with Sanskrit, Egyptian and Hebrew; and that it is even younger, being a derivation of a Dravidian proto-language.

So Google is wrong. But why has it reached this conclusion? The reason these relatively modern languages are cited by Google, and that the Australian Aboriginal language is not mentioned anywhere, is because Google, and the mainstream scientific community, is basically defining language as simply written language, or language with a written equivalent. Yet the definition of language is broader than this, viz.

Language, n., the principal method of human communication, consisting of words used in a structured and conventional way and conveyed by speech, writing, or gesture. 

There you have it - speech, writing or gesture - all forms of communication. Though, of course, human communication is even broader than that, utilising gestures, icons, symbols and movements. There is even so-called psychic communication.

Language, in the context of this discussion and primarily, is a form of communication which utilises sound, or speech. The logical evolutionary path of language would be from simple sounds and gestures, through to the formation of words, and then the application of grammatical structures such as sentences. The written form came very late in the process of language development, and was simply a graphical means of recording that development, based on prior graphical means. And that is the problem: if language evolved over a period of 400,000+ years, then the “oldest language”, or the oldest form of language, is not that which has been written down, and which we know to be only around 5000 years old; it is, in fact, something much older and for which there is no written record.

But we are told that the only records we have of language are basically written ones, whether it be original text or later transcriptions of languages with no written tradition, as is the case with Aboriginal Australian. But no! That is not correct. We have another record of language - namely, the spoken word. And in the case of the Australian Aboriginal language, we have a record which is, according to Illert, at least 65,000 years old and still being spoken. All those other languages - Tamil, Egyptian, Hebrew, Sanskrit, etc., are similarly based on much earlier so-called proto-languages. But how have these been identified, and how far back do they go? 

Traditionally, linguists have used the comparative method to develop and identify proto-languages. Unfortunately, the comparative method of identifying relationships between languages, based on word comparisons, can only cover short time scales and go back c.5,000 years. Yet language is way, way older than that. It is unknown whether language started in one place or many places. Also, it is not known if the mythical Proto-World language existed, or in what form. It could have existed in Africa, or elsewhere, between 7 million and 100,000 years ago.

[Reference: Xidnaf, Proto-world and the origin of language [video], YouTube, 11 January 2011, duration: 7.08 minutes. URL: https://youtu.be/jcc40AowXPQ.]

Wikipedia tells us that this is the only way it can be done. They start with written records, and some oral transcriptions such as in the form of word lists and examples of grammar. They then compare these across languages and identify connections. This comparative method of identifying relationships between languages, based on word comparisons, can only cover short time scales and go back c.5,000 years in regards to identifying proto-languages. It has been used to identify root languages such as Proto-Indo-European (5-6 kya), Proto-Uralic (7-2 kya) and Proto-Dravidian (4 kya).

The other issue is that the Out-of-Africa theory tends to centralise all consideration of languages prior to the introduction of historical written records. But if human origins date back c.400,000+ years to the origins of Homo sapiens, and language was spoken around the globe at least as long, if not longer if we consider Homo erectus, then this is largely irrelevant. We know that, for example, ancestors of present-day Aborigines occupied Australia up to 130,000 years ago. Therefore, the evolution of their language would have evolved over that period of time, at least, and likely prior as they were not the only humanoids on the planet. As noted above, DNA studies inform us of Neanderthal and Denisovans occupying areas outside of Africa, including Australasia. Fossil studies suggest that language development in Homo erectus and Homo neanderthalensis was limited physiologically, though not totally constrained. Homo sapiens were much better adapted to speech.

Another element missing from the discussion is the fact that Aboriginal Australian can claim to be the oldest, continually spoken language on the planet, with minimal change over time due to the relative isolation of the continent, and especially within its southern and south-eastern regions. Because no written form was ever developed, it has therefore been largely excluded from the international discussion around proto-languages. However, it is upon the premise of the antiquity of Aboriginal Australian that the research of Dr. Chris Illert is based. 

Aboriginal Australian was traditionally an oral language, with no written equivalent prior to the arrival of Europeans in 1788. Only surviving ancient glifts in stone and carvings on trees provide evidence of a “written” form of expression, though they were more in the area of art rather than a pure language script. Illert's research has revealed that present day Australian Aboriginal languages are a time capsule, with substantial elements harking back to the origins of language on the continent and beyond. Furthermore, an understanding of the content and structure of Illert’s scientifically reconstructed Proto-Australian can provide a veritable “Rosetta stone” for the study of the origin of human languages worldwide (Illert 2006:989). How so? 

2 - English v. Australian Aboriginal 

Let us look, for a minute, at a comparison between modern English and Illert’s Proto-Australian. 

In modern English there are 44 sounds (phonemes), in the form of consonants (e.g., b, d, f, g, ŋ) and vowels (e.g., æ, e, ʊ, o). 

And those 44 sounds make up every word spoken in the English language. 

Individual sounds combine to make simple root words in the form of the smallest, meaningful lexical units, e.g., at, the, end, but, no, not. 

For example, Run is a root word. It is made up of three sounds: r / u / n 

Run is also a word with variants include running, runs, ran. 

Running is not a root word - it is made up of two root words - run and ing. 

In summary, within languages we have words, basic word elements or root words, and individual sounds. This is the same as the "emes" mentioned above.

And whilst English operates at the level of words, the Proto-Australian Aboriginal language, by comparison, operates in large part at the level of root words, i.e., more simple words which can be widely utilised to provide description and meaning to the world around (Illert 2003:118). 

The words in Proto-Australian are commonly, and almost invariably, made up of a combination of simple root words (usually from 2 to 6), to an extent unseen in English, where complex, individual (unique) words dominate. 

For example, in English we call a certain marsupial a platypus. However, in the Aboriginal Proto-Australian, that marsupial is referred to using a group of root words which describe aspects of the animal and its behaviour, specifically the fact that it emits bubbles in the water when it is moving about. If we identify the Australian Aboriginal word for the animal, then break it down phonetically, the various root words (i.e. proto-words) are revealed. If we know the meaning of each of the proto-words we are then able to see the word, or various combinations of root words, used to describe the animal. This is the core of the Illert discoveries. For example: 

* English word -  Platypus (first created in 1799) 

* English recording of the Aboriginal word - Mullangong (recorded in 1891) 

* Phonetic translation (root words) -  malu : ŋ-gʊn : g(ʊn) - (Illert 2001) 

* English pronunciation - moola : ng-gayan : g 

* English translation (root words combined) - bubbly very thing / very bubbly thing (Illert 2001) 

These root words can, in turn, be mixed around (flipped) and/or abbreviated by various individuals and language groups to create different sounding words, whilst still referring to the same thing and with the same descriptive content. Other root words can also be used. For example, the playtypus was elsewhere called Boondaburra, which translates as slow waddling thing in reference to its movement out of water, and the related Tambreet which translates as one waddling about. The variant spellings are due to the words as heard and recorded by English speakers with, for example, the Aboriginal sound d (dh) heard and recorded at T.

This is the form of the Australian Aboriginal language that was in use around the time of the arrival of the First Fleet in Australia in 1788 when, as far as the records show, Europeans first compiled Aboriginal language word lists and examples of grammar, such as songs, stories and basic sentences. Unfortunately, professional orthography - i.e., the science of recording speech and spelling - was not in place at that time amongst the soldiers, convicts, administrators and free settlers within the Colony. Individual collectors such as First Fleet soldier William Dawes possessed only rudimentary skills in this area. As a result, as as can be seen above, many (most) of the Aboriginal word lists were deficient in fully representing the sounds as spoken by the Indigenous population. Their simplified recordings did not usually contain precise phonetic information, as seen in the Illert example above. And the language of the local people - the words, the sounds, the sentence structures - was different to English and other European, Asian and American languages in its structure and audible expression, or pronunciation. Surprisingly, the new arrivals found it a difficult language to learn, and were never really sure of the reasons for this. Such difficulties remain amongst the non-Indigenous population to this day. Why is this so? An outline of Illert’s discoveries will help answer this question. 

3 - Connections and discovery 

No clear relationship has yet been found between Australian Aboriginal languages and the rest of the world's languages. (David Crystal, How Languages Work, 2006)

David Crystal, in his comprehensive historical analysis of the development of languages, failed to realise that the reason there appeared to be no connection between Australian Aboriginal and other world languages was because it pre-dates those languages. It is, in fact, closer to the mythical Proto-World language than any other known to the current author of this article. Other such languages do exist, utilising few sounds, but are not discussed here. This paper seeks to highlight the unique qualities of modern Australian Aboriginal languages, understand their origins back to Proto-Australian, identify basic structural elements, and reveal differences from other languages such as English.

In the present day there are many Australian Aboriginal languages, just as there are many different languages spoken in Europe and Asia, along with dialects. However, if we look at these Australian Aboriginal languages and dialects over time, we can see connections, origins and evolution. Language development is like a vast tree, with many branches, but a solid trunk with its various roots. And in this paper we use the work of Dr. Chris Illert in revealing the origin story of the Australian Aboriginal languages that we know today. It is a story which concerns what Illert refers to as the Proto-Australian Aboriginal language. But where did this idea come from? Well that is an interesting story…. 

4 - The research process 

During the 1980s Chris Illert - an Illawarra-based independent researcher originally from South Australia - was involved in environmental activism which brought him into contact with the local Aboriginal community. Arising out of this, and of his assisting them in regard to family history research and Native Title claims, Illert began investigating the Aboriginal languages of south-eastern Australia. He was to bring a unique perspective to these investigations as he was not an academically-trained linguist, and did not follow the standard academic path of this branch of study which sits within the field of the humanities and social sciences. However, he was academically trained in areas of hard science such as mathematics and quantum physics. In addition, and most significantly, due to his own family history Illert had an intimate knowledge of European and other languages, including Sanskrit from the Indian subcontinent, German and Greek. This helped him when, like many others before, he came to realise the unique qualities of the Australian Aboriginal language, or languages. 

To get to that point, Illert began compiling word lists and other sources of information such as grammars, songs, and places names and personal names contained within blanket lists from the earliest years of European settlement through to the mid and late nineteenth century. From his eventual database of more than 8,000 words, and grammatical structural elements, he applied various mathematical skills and statistical analysis techniques to reveal relationships and themes. He did not follow the traditional comparative path, but worked internally to deconstruct the language and reveal the proto-language through the basic catalogue of sounds utilised and the root words revealed therein. To Illert’s amazement, he uncovered a relatively simple system within. This was a system which was in some ways different from the English he used on a daily basis. And it was a system, or structure, which had not been revealed by other linguists studying the Australian Aboriginal language up to that point in time. 

There is no doubt that Aboriginal people would have understood the structure of their language. However, it appeared from the historical record that such information had not been passed on to ethnolinguists, or they had not sought or understood it if and when it was. As a result, Australian linguists had following the European comparative analysis path in analysing the local language/s. 

Illert called the language he uncovered the Proto-Australian Aboriginal language, or Proto-Australian for short. His analysis, despite its significance, was not taken up by that same coterie of academically trained linguists, either locally or abroad. It is unclear why this is so. In the view of the present writer, three factors may account for this reticence: 

• The complex, mathematical nature of Illert’s analysis and conclusions can be difficult to comprehend for the layperson or social scientist. 
• The fact that, shortly after completing a PhD thesis on the subject, Illert suffered a debilitating stroke, thereby limiting his ability to publicly promote his findings, though he was still able to continue his research (Illert 2013). 
• The ‘outsider’ nature of the author, which both disenfranchised him from the academic linguistic community, whilst, at the same time, enabled him to achieve a breakthrough in regard to Proto-Australian, unencumbered by the traditional path taken by linguists up until then, but nevertheless proven through the research and analyses academically assessed and publically revealed within his PhD on the subject. 

Fortunately, Illert has also left a legacy of academically refereed publications and community-based reports which record his discoveries in detail and will enable them, over time, to be given wider consideration, acceptance and application. 

5 - A root-word based language 

Illert’s research during the 1990s and early 2000s revealed that the Australian Aboriginal language, based on that recorded by Europeans during the earliest years of settlement, consisted of the following basic elements: 

• 18 sounds (phonemes), and 
• 56 Proto-Australian words (morphemes). 

Illert argued in his published papers that these 56 words formed the oldest word list in existence, having applications going back some 65,000 years (Illert 2013). 

He used the mathematical approach of entropy to go back in time and reconstruct the proto-language. 

Illert could draw this conclusion, in part, because the Australian Aboriginal language was, as noted above, the oldest living language on the planet. And the word lists and grammar compiled by Illert were all directly derived from, and related to this language. 

During his research he was able to identify Australian Aboriginal words with connections to those from other ancient languages, such as Greek and Sanskrit. In turn, Illert asserted that it was from his Proto-Australian word list that many present day world language elements were derived (Illert 2018:21). This arose out of:

(a) the development of language prior to the arrival of the Aboriginal people in Australia;

(b) the local development of the language over deep time, and largely in isolation i.e., >130K years; and

(c) interaction of its speakers with individuals external to Australia, up until the present. 

These were, to some, controversial statements, with wide-reaching implications. Yet, Illert was not hesitant in putting forward his arguments and publishing his findings through peer-reviewed scholarly journals, a more fulsome PhD thesis, and community-based publications produced in collaboration with First Nations peoples and communities. Numerous articles appeared in refereed journals, alongside the community-based publications, between 1996 and 2021. 

For example, in 1999 Illert produced, in collaboration with the Nurginwal Australia Capital Territory and District Aboriginal Council of Elders, a small illustrated booklet titled Mununja the Butterfly - the first storybook in traditional Aboriginal language from south-eastern Australia (Bell and Illert 1999). Illert's 2013 PhD thesis from the University of Western Sydney on The Original Australian Aboriginal Language was also made freely available on open access online. 

The aforementioned assertions and conclusions arising from Illert’s research were supported by him in all instances through numerous examples and solid scientific research, appropriately cited. They say that the proof of the pudding is in the eating, and Illert provided a veritable feast for linguists, ethnologists and Aboriginal people to make use of in understanding the origins of the Australian Aboriginal language/s. “Prove it!” you say. 

Well, that is both easy and difficult. Easy in the fact that Illert, a mathematician, provides ample proof of his assertions - both mathematical proofs and real-world examples. Difficult, in the fact that the phonetic and mathematical outlines of his discoveries are, by their nature, academic, complex and, at times, a chore for the layperson to comprehend. That is perhaps why the academic linguistic fraternity has not commented on, or taken up, his findings - they often just do not understand the complexity of the argument to the degree whereby they can adopt the simplicity of the solution. 

Illert also makes use of unfamiliar - though accurate - phonetic scripts in his publications. These require a deal of prior knowledge in order for the non-linguist to fully understand the text and diagrams in which they are applied. He also makes efforts within various publications to address these difficulties of comprehension, through the use of descriptive texts, diagrams and illustrations. 

However, with his focus on the discoveries at hand, their proof and implications, the additional task of simplifying and outlining them in a condensed fashion for a general audience was not, and is not, a priority for Illert, and indeed, neither should it be. It would be like expecting Einstein to write The Idiots Guide to Relativity, instead of concentrating on the development of his complex, controversial, and ground-breaking original scientific texts on the subject. For this reason, the current presentation hopefully serves as a mere introduction to Illert’s work, and a partial explanation of his discoveries, in layperson’s terms. For those interested in taking the next step, a reading of the original published papers and thesis is required, the majority of which are listed below, with links where available. Therein is not only an outline of the language discoveries, but also cultural heritage information and analyses of the development of language boundaries and dialects over time.

6 - Significance 

Chris Illert’s analysis and reconstruction of Proto-Australian, internationally significant in and of itself, enables, often for the first time, the translation of Aboriginal words, phrases and text (such as songs) that were written or recorded during the first century of European settlement and that would otherwise remain a mystery. 

This is important because, as a result of the cultural genocidal endeavours of the non-Indigenous population since 1788 in regard to massacres, dispossession and the policy of assimilation, going so far as banning the use and teaching of language within Aboriginal communities, all of these actions resulted in many communities in southeastern Australian and beyond disappearing, and their language with them. In such instances, there was now nobody alive to translate or speak. And for that reason alone, Illert’s work is of vital important. Of course it goes beyond that, enabling a better understanding of the structure of Australian Aboriginal languages and thereby facilitating the ongoing teaching, learning and revival process. 

So let's talk about what Illert actually found, beginning with the relatively simple stuff. 

7 - The structure 

As noted above, Proto-Australian is based on 18 sounds (phonemes), in comparison with the 44 identified in English. Illert revealed this group of sounds from his study of early word lists and grammar examples. A list of these sounds is reproduced below (Illert 2018: Appendix 1): 

Phonemes
phonetic	the sound
a	a
b	b
d	d
d	dh
ɖ	dj
g	g
i	i
l	l
m	m
n	n
ŋ	ng
n	nh
ɲ	ny
r	r
u	u
w	w
y
ʊ	aya or perhaps aia

The sounds form the basic (root) words in Proto-Australian.

By studying his 8000+ item word list, Illert was able to apply meaning to the root-words, such as 

mʊra = great, large

A list of 56 root words identified by Illert is reproduced below (Illert 2018: Appendix 2): 

Root words

1. bulʊ = down, low, flat, dead, cessation
2. bʊlu = up, high, projecting, commencement
3. bulala = 2
4. burʊ = noisy, quick, energetic, awake
5. bʊru = quiet, slow, lazy, tired, sleepy, still
6. barʊ = either-side, opposing
7. bʊra = between, compromise
8. buru = bouncy, hoppy (as with Kangaroo)     
9. bara = waddling (as with Wallaby)
10. darʊ = about, external, outside surface
11. dʊra = through, internal, inside 
12. dulu = straight, extended, separated
13. dulʊ = shabby, untidy, bent
14. dʊla = 1, singular, unity 
15. gulʊ = dull, lethargic (as with Koala), petrified
16. gʊlu = shiny, radiant, vital, nice/good, alive
17. gʊn = very
18. gula = malevolent, deadly, treacherous, angry, sorcery
19. galu = benevolent, helpful, honest, happy
20. gurʊ = flat, globular, convex, more
21. gʊru = slim, concave, less
22. garʊ = from, out-of, sound
23. gʊra = toward, into, throat, orifice, cave, valley
24. gura = firm (as with stones, hall or muscle)
25. garu = squishy (like nasal mucous), fluffy (like clouds)
26. gilʊ = behind, rear
27. malʊ = blind, obstructing, shielding, opaque, (eye) cataracts
28. mʊlʊ = visible, accessible, clear, channelling
29. murʊla = 5
30. mulʊ = familiar, intimate
31. mʊlu = unfamiliar, strange, unexpected
32. malu = (air) bubbles (as with platypus)
33. mula = (liquid) droplets, progeny, dust
34. mala = inflated, bulging, enhanced
35. mulu = deflated, shrivelled, emaciated, diminished
36. mʊra = large, greatly
37. murʊ = small, slightly
38. mirʊ = 0, ahead, in front 
39. miɲ = the, a (singular)
    
40. ɲin = here
41. nʊra = yonder, distant   
42. nurʊla = 4
43. ŋuru = cyclic, oscillatory, twinkle, shimmery
    
44. ŋara = knotted, coiled, spiral
    
45. ɲara = full, solid
    
46. ɲura = half, middle
    
47. ɲuru = empty, below 
48. ɲun = something (plural)
49. ɲuɲ = someone's (plural)
50. ŋulu = sinusoidal, wrinkled, crushed 
51. wurʊla = 3, plural, several, lots of
52. wirʊ = profane, improper, left, crocked
53. wʊri = sacred, proper, right, aligned
54. wara = far, distant
55. wuru = away
56. wiɲ = wring, twist, rotate, spin, orbit                    

Dr. Chris Illert's Proto-Australian word list (Illert 2021)

8 - Examples 

Illert’s published texts - most especially those which were community-based - were always accompanied by illustrations, often in the form of boxed phonetic descriptions, relevant historical text, and even pen and ink drawings by the author. 

Once again, a knowledge of phonetics was required to fully appreciate the information contained and summarised within the boxes. Some examples of his translations are included below:

(a) In 1837 Philip Gidley King, former crew member of the Beagle expeditions of the 1830s, recorded the Aboriginal name of the Snowy Mountains in southern New South Wales, as seen from a distance - munyang. His friend, the Reverend W.B. Clarke, also recorded the name during his visit in 1851-2 - moniong. Both men wrote down differently spelt words as the English equivalents of what they heard, yet both informants were referring to the same thing. Illert, using his 18 sounds and 56 words, identified the roots of the word heard by King as: 

munyang - original Aboriginal as recorded

mʊ(ra) : nʊ(ra) : ŋ(uru) - Aboriginal phonetic breakdown by Illert

= maia : nhaia : ng = munyang - English phonetic

> great - yonder - bright thing - English translation

The three root-words identified above were able to be mixed around in their order to provide the same meaning, but a slightly different sounding word as heard by Clarke: 

moniong

mʊ(ra) - nʊ(ra) - ŋ(uru) 

= maia : nhaia : ng = numiong 

> yonder - great - bright thing 

This flipping of root words was revealed as a common use of Proto-Australian during the nineteenth century, and it is the reason it was thought that there were so many different languages, rather than variant uses of a basic language which could nevertheless be understood across a wide area. In the above instance, the far off view of the snow-covered mountains is described in terms of a bright thing in the distance.

(b) Bundanoon - a town on the New South Wales Southern Highlands (Illert 2022).

bʊ(ra) : n : dʊ(la) : ɳʊŋ

= baia : n : daia : naing

> between : thing : someone’s

i.e. where someone rests between places e.g., travelling to and from the Shoalhaven.

(c) Gingenbullen - a small mountain near Moss Vale, New South Wales (Illert 2007 & 2022). Identified as relating to the Gundungara lanaguage, Midthung idiom.

gʊn : gʊn : bulʊ : ŋ 

= gayan : gayan : bulay : ng

very : very: sick (dead) place // very : very : down/sick person

i.e. big burial site / burial mound.

These examples of Aboriginal words reveal the basic structural elements of Proto-Australian as it has applied in south-eastern Australia up until recent times. Many other examples are to be found in Illert's published works. These include not only word analysis and structure breakdown, but also grammar and tense outlines. This can be seen in the following page which analyses a record in the diary of William Dawes, from Sydney in 1790, just two years after the arrival of the First Fleet in 1788. It records a comment by his Aboriginal girlfriend wherein she states that she and another person were beaten by a white man.

Page from Illert 2021.

9 - Entropy: Applying borders in time and space 

Having identified the basis structure of the Australian Aboriginal language, Illert used the mathematical analysis of the concept of entropy to determine the oldest, basic form which he could reasonably assume was that in existence uponthe so-called Out-of-Africa arrival of Aboriginal people in Australia around 65,000 years ago. He then took the next step and came forward in time and developed a family tree extending into the present for some of the south-eastern Australian languages. Illert described this tree development process in the following terms: 

Traditional south-east Australian language zones [were] deducted, as an objective empirical fact, from statistical analysis of 37 historic word lists collectively containing 7601 Aboriginal words, and 9 early census lists (‘blanket registers’) collectively containing 445 traditional names [total = 8,045 words]. Each word list or name list [was given] a distinctive phonotactic signature (a string of plus and minus signs) telling which language the people spoke and where they came from. (Illert 2003c:8, Illert 2005:626) 

An example of the complexity of the scientific process, and the difficulties inherent in creating a layperson explanation, is found in the abstract accompanying a paper published in the Journal of Applied Statistics and a University of Adelaide seminar presentation from 2004 - and I quote: 

The changing frequencies of word-initial consonants, from proto-Australian to modern times, enables entropy maximising signatures to be calculated from historic word-lists and census forms gathered in recent centuries over large geographical areas. In turn these signatures enable the poorly recorded boundaries of extinct traditional languages to be determined, to previously unimaginable degrees of geographical precision, throughout entire regions of the continent. Although this initial study is limited to south-eastern-Australia, its methodology provides the first real hope of obtaining a detailed understanding of language dispersal throughout the entire continent over the past 60,000 years. (Illert 2004) 

The language groupings, or families and superfamilies Illert subsequently identified through to 2021, included the following: 

• Original-A - 65,000 years old 
• Original-B (Eora) - 45,000 years old 
• Turuwul - 45,000 years old 
• Southern-B - 30,000 years old 
• Tharumba (comprising 1. Midthung Tharumba, 2. Walgalu and 3. ngargu nunawal) - 15,000 years old .

He graphically illustrated these using various diagrams and maps

For example, the above groupings were accompanied by hand-drawn maps in order to illustrate the findings, geographical boundaries and time-based relationships with greater refinement. 

These maps were included in Illert’s three-part paper The Tharumba Language of Southern New South Wales (2018-2021) which brought his work up to date. 

10 - Where to from here? 

The next stage for Illert is to extend his research beyond south-eastern Australia, west into South Australia and north into Queensland the the Northern Territory. Apart from this, the promotion of his findings, and the development of programs to present them to new audiences, will continue. 

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

11. References

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

Illert, Chris - refer Bibliography below.

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

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.

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.

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

12. Select Bibliography of Chris Illert

All works are by Chris Illert unless otherwise indicated. They are arranged chronologically.

Bell, Don and Chris Illert, Mununja the Butterfly - the first storybook in traditional Aboriginal language from south-eastern Australia, Nurgunwal A.C.T and District Aboriginal Council of Elders, 1999. [Booklet]

Lexigenesis in ancestral south-east-Australian Aboriginal language, Preprint Series, School of Languages and Linguistics, University of Western Sydney , 2001, 42p. [Booklet]

Lexigenesis in ancestral south-east-Australian Aboriginal language, Journal of Applied Statistics, 30(2), 2003, 113-143. [Refereed journal article]

Three Sisters Dreaming, or, did Katoomba get its legend from Kangaroo Valley, Shoalhaven Chronograph, Shoalhaven Historical Society, 2003, (Special Supplement), 40p. [Booklet]

Early Ancestors of Illawarra’s Wadi-WadiPeople - Part 1, Illawarra Historical Society Bulletin, November 2003 (Special Supplement), 50p. [Booklet]

Chris Illert and Andrew Allison, Phono-genesis and the Origin of Accusative Syntax in Proto-Australian Language, Journal of Applied Statistics, 31(1), 2004, 73–104. [Refereed journal article]

The use of entropy-maximising power law signatures in studying Aboriginal language, research seminar, University of Adelaide, Special Joint Electrical & Electronic Engineering, Applied Mathematics & Linguistics seminar, 8 March 2004. [Presentation]

Origins of linguistic zonation in the Australian Alps. Part 1 – Huygens' principle, Journal of Applied Statistics, 32(6), 2005, 625–659. [Refereed journal article]

Origins of linguistic zonation in the Australian Alps. Part 2 – Snell's Law, Journal of Applied Statistics, 33(9), 2006, 989–1030. [Refereed journal article]

A mathematical approach to recovering the original Australian Aboriginal language, PhD., School of Languages and Linguistics, University of Western Sydney, 2013, 277p. [Doctoral thesis]

Chris Illert and John Murphy, The Tharumba Language of Southern New South Wales: Part 1 of Who was right - P.G. King or C. Darwin?, 2018, 24p. [Booklet]

Chris Illert, John Murphy and Michael Organ, The Three Traditional Aboriginal Languages of Victoria: Part 2 of Who was right - P.G. King or C. Darwin?, 2019, 41p [Booklet].

Chris Illert, John Murphy and Michael Organ, The Traditional Aboriginal Languages of Original-A and Original-B in western New South Wales: Part 3 of Who was right - P.G. King or C. Darwin?, 2021, 48p [Booklet].

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

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

Last updated: 17 October 2024

Michael Organ, Australia (Home)