The expansion of Setaria farmers in East Asia (original) (raw)
Bulletin of the Indo-Pacific Prehistory Association, 2008
This study investigates some important terms of cereal agriculture in the five language families of East Asia, in an attempt to gain some insights into processes of cereal domestication, demographic expansions and the formation of language families. The principal findings are: • There is some evidence that the proto-Austronesians cultivated wet rice, albeit without elaborate irrigation techniques; • Two words for rice are uniquely shared by Sino-Tibetan and Austronesian, with sound correspondences; • A word for 'Setaria italica', a millet, is possibly shared by Chinese and Austronesian. • There is no evidence for agricultural words uniquely shared by Austroasiatic and Austronesian (Austric). 'millet'), Karen me < may 'boiled rice', Ch. mi 3 米 * a mij / 'husked grain' (general term). This Chinese word has unexpected high-tone reflexes in some modern dialects (O'Connor 1976 for Hakka), which indicates a lost voiceless consonant before initial m-(thus really * a C voiceless-mij /). Voiceless hmin the Chinese loan to Mien *hmÅj B 'husked rice' (see below) also points to a lost voiceless element before m-. 2.1.2 Hmong-Mien Wang and Mao (1995) reconstructed proto-Hmong-Mien *mblau A 'paddy, unhusked rice', and Benedict compared this to Tai-Kadai and Formosan words cited below (2.3.5). The resemblance with Chinese dao 4 稻 * a lu/ 'paddy' is superficial (Sagart 1999:182 contra Haudricourt and Strecker 1991). 2.1.3 Austronesian The proto-Austronesian word for 'paddy' was certainly *pajay (Blust 1976), with widespread reflexes both inside and outside of Formosa. Proposals to connect this term with proto-Hmong-Mien *mblau A 'id.' (Pejros and Shnirelman 1998:383), or with proto-Tai (Li 1977) *klaa C 'rice seedlings' (Benedict 1975: 364) are extremely unlikely. No convincing comparisons for PAN *pajay are known so far outside of Austronesian.
From the outset the researcher has approached the topic of this review article with great trepidation. Obviously, the paper does not purport to provide final answers or solutions to problems associated with the reconstruction of the linguistic prehistory of the Tai-Kadai language family or even less definitive conclusions concerning the ethnolingustic affiliations or affinities with other language families. Even so, the researcher has the temerity to review research investigations impinging on this topic in the work of archaeologists, geneticists, historians and linguists. Special attention is directed to recent advances in genetic investigations of the peopling of Asia. It is in the context that the researcher discusses what can be inferred from these investigations concerning the prehistoric linguistic relationships between the Tai-Kadai the Austronesian, and the Austro-Tai language families, on the one hand, and the languages of the Baiyue (Chinese: 百越; Bǎiyuè) peoples on the other. As such, this review article offers suggestions for reclassifying the Tai-Kadai language family and related language families with which it was associated or had affinities so as to include the Bǎiyuè (or Hundred Yue) languages and some of its subdivisions, including proto-Yaht and proto-Vietnamese (Viet) in the prehistory of these language groups.
Evaluating the Sino-Tibeto-Austronesian Hypothesis
2018
This paper analyses and evaluates the alleged genetic relationship between Sino-Tibetan and Austronesian, proposed by the French sinologist Laurent Sagart. The aim of the following paper is neither to prove, nor to disprove the Sino-Tibeto-Austronesian superphylum but to argue whether the data presented in favour of this proposed genetic relationship do or do not stand the scrutiny of a historical linguist. This paper also considers the hypothetical homeland of Proto-Sino-Tibeto-Austronesian people, with an eye towards competing hypotheses , such as Sino-Indo-European. It is concluded that Sagart' s approach may be insufficient for proof of controversial cases of disputed genetic relationship, given the non-obvious relatedness of the languages he is comparing.
The Wider Connections of Austronesian: A Response to Blust (2009)
This paper responds to the criticisms addressed by Robert A. Blust in his 2009 book to the lexical and phonological component of the Sino-Tibetan-Austronesian hypothesis (Sagart 2005). It describes two models of Austronesian origins: a southern, rice-based, Austro-Tai or Austric model with a homeland in the Yangtze Valley, defended by Blust; and a northern, millet- and rice-based, Sino-Tibetan-Austronesian model with a source in northeastern China, defended by the author. Recent findings in archaeology, paleobotany and human genetics supporting the Sino-Tibetan-Austronesian hypothesis are reviewed. Blust’s criticisms are then responded to. His observations on individual lexical comparisons are discussed. His general criticisms on semantics, use of rare and obscure material, and usage of Austronesian ‘roots’ in external comparison, are also addressed. The paper concludes that the phonological and lexical evidence for Sino-Tibetan-Austronesian is limited because of the time depth involved, but robust, and that it agrees with evidence from other disciplines.
Austronesian and Sino-Tibetan words for Setaria italica and Panicum miliaceum: any connection?
This paper reviews the names given to the plants Setaria italica and Panicum miliaceum in Proto-Austronesian (PAN) and in Sino-Tibetan, especially in Old Chinese (OC), in the recent reconstruction of Baxter and Sagart (2014, in press). On Panicum m. it shows that interference from an unrelated etymon *baSaw ‘to cool off’ (of cooked cereals) has led to non-viable proto-forms such as *baSaR being proposed. It also rejects Blust’s *baCaj, as the Philippine forms ending in -d, which are crucial in pointing to PAN *-j, refer to Sorghum, not Panicum, and can therefore be suspected of having spread by contact from a Western Malayo-Polynesian language where the name of Panicum m. had been transferred to intrusive Sorghum. It argues that the names of the two millets in PAN were *beCeŋ (Setaria) and *baCaR (Panicum) respectively and that the corresponding forms in OC are 稷 *[ts]ək and 穄 *[ts][a][t]-s, even though phonetic convergence between these two terms in Mandarin —where both are now pronounced ji4—has led to semantic confusion between the two. It argues that these terms are cognate, and presents the phonetic ground for this claim. Finally, it argues that a farming/language expansion fueled by millets and rice, originating in North China in the period 8700-7000 BCE, is responsible for the spread of the Sino-Tibetan-Austronesian language family, including the names of the two millets, over large parts of mainland and insular East Asia.
FOCAL I + II : papers from the fourth International Conference on Austronesian Linguistics
Dept. of Linguistics, Research School of Pacific Studies, The Australian National University eBooks, 1986
The more/less geographically contiguous are the members of a set of genetically related languages , the more/less likely it is that they form a subgroup. This warrant is given a central role in the novel app roach to sub grouping suggested in Grace (in this volume). 6. Note that the various implicational hierarchies that have been proposed in recent work govern not the naturalness of changes , but their progress through time. Changes that violate these hierarchies would not be con sidered to be unnatural changes. Rather , their incidence would suggest deficiencies in the theory. One could , of course , envision an alternative theory , of the type T above , in which the naturalness of changes is evalu ated , and in terms of wh ich a subgrouping warrant could be constructed. ON THE NATURE OF SUBGROUPING ARGUMENTS 21 7. Given differing views regarding the status of the fact of change premise or regarding the strength of necessary conditions for change. 8. Note that the supposed correspondence between a family tree diagram and a non-overlapping wave diagram is irrelevant to the interpretation of the quantity of shared changes. Such a correspondence could only be licensed by some version of the strong act of change warrant , rejected earlier. The same is true , I believe , of the proposal (elaborated in Krishnamurti et al 1983) for subgrouping based on lexical diffusion. 9. There is a non-linguistic justification for subgrouping, by which family trees are brought to bear as evidence for prehistory. Wh ile such altruism is commendable , it does have limits , an obvious one being the status of the subgrouping conclusions. If such conclusions cannot be trusted , they are of little value to anyone. 10. It seems to me that an attempt to construct such an argument might prove a valuable exercise. More specifically , I have in mind a weak version of that argument , to the effect that one should not expect to find clearly demarcated subgroups with all n-membered sets of genetically related lan guages. The basis of the argument might be the existence of 'dialect chains ', within which no subgrouping is expected , together with the hypo thesis that the most immediate common ancestor of a given dialect chain was itself a point in a dialect chain. I will not develop this argument further here , however .
The pitfalls of negative evidence 'Nuclear Austronesian', 'Ergative Austronesian', and their progeny
Language and Lingusitics, 2017
Beginning with publications in the early 1980s there have been attempts to use syntactic data to determine the highest-order subgroups of Austronesian. These efforts fall into two categories: those which claim that the voice affixes of Philippine-type languages originally had exclusively nominalizing functions, and those which claim that the affixes themselves were innovated after the separation of Rukai from the ancestor of all other Austronesian languages. Although these ideas lay dormant for some years, recently both have been revived in renewed efforts to show that the Austronesian family tree is not 'rake-like' in its highest nodes, but shows extensive embedding of subgroups that can be justified by successive layers of syntactic innovations. This paper questions the method-ological soundness of both types of arguments on the grounds that they appeal to negative evidence, and logically any such appeal can do no better than reach an inference of indeterminate status rather than the positive conclusions that have been proposed.
Austroasiatic phylogeny and the Austroasiatic homeland in light of recent population genetic studies
Mon-Khmer Studies, 37: 1-14., 2007
Currently, the most informed and authoritative Austroasiatic Stammbaum is the language family tree presented by . Diffloth has also identified a number of reconstructible pan-Austroasiatic lexical roots with linguistic palaeontological significance for the probable location of the Austroasiatic homeland or, at least, for minimal climatological conditions which must have prevailed in such a homeland. What can population genetic studies of Tibeto-Burman and Indo-European language communities tell us about how the emerging Austroasiatic picture could be interpreted? Does the Father Tongue hypothesis apply to Austroasiatic or to portions thereof? The three versions of prehistory afforded by archaeology, population genetics and linguistics can and should be kept distinct in the argumentation used in correlative studies. The Centripetal Migration model is proposed and juxtaposed to the Farming-Language Dispersal model. 1
Diachronica, 2007
Reviewed by J. Marshall Unger (The Ohio State University) This collection of papers "arose out of a workshop on the phylogeny of East Asian languages, organized by Laurent Sagart and the much missed Stanley Starosta in Périgueux … 29-3 August 200" (xxi). It comprises a useful introduction by the editors, four contributions on archaeology, seven on linguistics, and six on genetics and physical anthropology. The focus is on languages usually classified as Sino-Tibetan, Hmong-Mien, Daic, Austro-Asiatic, and Austronesian and their speakers, past and present. The so-called Altaic languages, Korean, Japanese, Ainu, and isolates of China do not, unfortunately, figure in the linguistics chapters, but there is no shortage of material on high-level theories and macrophyla. The book will therefore be of interest not only to scholars specializing on East Asia and the Pacific but also to those concerned with theoretical aspects of the comparative method and the challenges of interdisciplinary inquiry in general.
Some Recent Proposals Concerning the Classification of the Austronesian Languages
Oceanic Linguistics
The comparative method is a relatively well-defined tool that has been employed successfully in the classification of languages for two centuries. In recent years there have been several proposals about the classification of the Austronesian languages that violate basic principles of method. Because some of these have been advanced by scholars who are well-established in other branches of linguistics they have acquired an influence that is out of proportion to their scientific merit. This paper addresses two of these proposals: the 'Austronesian-Ongan' hypothesis of Juliette Blevins, and the 'higher phylogeny of Austronesian' by Laurent Sagart. By carefully delimiting the kinds of analytic operations that belong to the comparative method and those that do not, it is shown that both of these scholars make use of illicit operations to justify inferences about the external relationships of Austronesian on the one hand, and the internal classification of the languages on the other.