Poster - Cornell University

C
Correlating
l ti g the
th lexicon
l i
and
d dispersal
di p
l off proto
p
proto-Austroasiatic
t Austroasiatic
A t
i ti with
ith the
th arrival
i l off rice
i agriculture
g i lt
in
i Mainland
M i l d SEAsia
SEA i
P l Sidwell
Paul
Sid ll
C t ffor Research
Center
R
h in
i Computational
C
t ti l Linguistics
Li
i ti (Bangkok),
(B k k) andd Australian
A t li National
N ti l University
U i
it (Canberra)
(C b
)
<[email protected]
<[email protected]>
l id ll@
d
>
All discussions about the origins of the Austroasiatic languages have considered the fact that an elaborate vocabulary relating to rice agriculture is reconstructable for the protoproto
l g g , and
language
language,
d thi
this hhas bbeen iinterpreted
t p t d as iindicating
di ti g a hi
historically
t i lly ddeep
p ffamiliarity
ili ity with
ith rice
rice.
i
B h Diffloth
Both
Diffl h and
d Shorto
Sh
reconstruct similar
i il proto-Austroasiatic/Mon-Khmer
A
i i /M Kh
l i
lexicon
ffor rice
i and
d rice
i agriculture:
i lt
Diffloth ((2005))
#(k )ɓ ʔ ‘rice
#(kə)ɓaːʔ
‘rice
i plant’
plant
l ’
# k ʔ ‘rice
#rəŋkoːʔ
‘rice
i grain’
grain
i ’
#cəŋkaːm
ŋ
‘rice
rice outer husk’
husk
#
#kəndək
‘rice
‘rice
i inner
i
husk’
husk
h k’
# h ʔ ‘rice
#pheːʔ
‘rice
i bran’
bran
b ’
#təmpal
p ‘mortar’
mortar
#ɟənreʔ
ɟ
‘pestle’
ppestle
#
#ɟəmpiər
i ‘winnowing
‘winnowing
i
i tray’
tray’
#
#ɟərmuəl
l ‘dibbling-stick’
‘dibbli
dibbling stick
ti k’
Hi t i l distribution
Historical
di t ib ti off rice
i cultivation
lti ti by
b Peter
P t Bellwood
B ll
d
Classification:
Th principles
The
i i l off dialect
di l geography
h suggest that
that,
h all
ll things
hi
being
b i equal
equal,
l the
h
zone off greatest
t t di
diversity
it will
ill correlate
l t with
ith th
the hhomeland
l d ((e.g. di
dialect
l t
diversityy in the UK exceeds English
g
diversity
y abroad).
abroad)) No assessable
jjustification has been offered for published
p
Austroasiatic classifications,
classifications, so
thi writer
this
it has
h reassessed
d th
the question
ti with
ith computational
t ti l phylogenetics
h l
ti
with
ith the
th assistance
it
off R
Russell
ll G
Gray and
d Si
Simon G
Greenhill
hill (U
(University
i
it off
Aukland)) The results indicate a strongly
Aukland).
g y branching
g tree with little if any
y
nested
d sub-branching
sub-branching.
bb
hi
The tree on the immediate right
g shows our Bayesian
y
analysis
y of 54 AA
languages
g g (dollo
(
relaxed time analysis
y allowing
g for variable rates of
change)
change).
h
) All 13 consensus bbranches
h are iindentified
d ifi d with
i h high
hi h confidence
fid
b t hi
but
highh nested
t d bbranching
hi iis ffound
d tto hhave llow confidence
fid
(fi
(figures bbelow
l
0 9 are too weak to rely
0.9
y upon)
upon).
p )
I
Importantly
t tl there
th is
i no supportt for
f the
th long
l
held
h ld idea
id that
th t Munda
M d
languages
g g of India represent
p
a primary
p
y split
p in the pphylum,
phylum
y
, and other
studies ((e
(e.g.
g Donegan
g & Stampe
p 2004)) explain
p
the typological
yp g
restructuring
i off Munda.
M d Therefore
Munda
Th f
it
i is
i likely
lik l that
h the
h centre off genetic
i
di
diversity
it off AA is
i in
i Indo
IIndo-China
d China
Chi aroundd th
the mid
mid-Mekong.
id Mekong.
M k
S
Suchh a
homeland can explain
p
the dispersal
p
of AA languages
g g by
y the least number
off moves
moves.
Shorto ((2006))
*ɓ
*ɓaʔ
ɓaʔʔ ‘paddy’
‘paddy
dd ’
*rk[aw]ʔ
*rk[aw]ʔ
k[ ]ʔ ‘husked
‘hhusked
k d rice’
rice
i ’
*skaːmʔ ‘chaff
chaff,, husks of ppaddy’
paddy
y
*lʔək
*lʔək
ʔ ‘rice-bran’
‘rice-bran
i b ’
*[[p]heʔ
*[p]heʔ
]h ʔ ‘husked
‘hhusked
k d rice’
rice
i ’
*tpal
p ‘mortar
mortar for pounding
p
g rice’
rice
*nrəjʔ
nrəjʔ
j ‘pestle’
ppestle
*cpiər
*cpiər
i ‘to
‘to blow,
blow
bl
to winnow
winnow’
i
’
*ɟmuəll ‘to
*ɟmuəl
‘tto dibble’
dibble
dibbl ’
This
hi is
i more elaborate
l b
than
h the
h equivalent
q i l set off terms iin either
i h pproto-Tai,
proto-Taii
proto-Hmong-Mien
proto
t Hmong
H
Mi proto-Sino-Tibetan
Mien,
proto
t Sino
Si Tibetan.
Tib t O
One iinterpretation
t
t ti is
i that
th t this
thi is
i
indicative of ggreat antiquity,
antiquity
q y, and therefore should be correlated with the
oldest rice cultivating
g regions
g
((e
(e.g.
g central Yangtze
g valley)
valley).
y)
I this
Is
hi logically
l i ll necessary?? AA languages
l
are well
ll kknown to hhave llarge
large, unun
analyzable
l bl lexicons,
l i
which
hi h iis quite
it diff
differentt tto other
th regional
i l phyla
h l
((especially
p
y Tai!)
Tai!).
) What do other lines of evidence say?
y
Present distribution
di ib i off Austroasiatic
A
i i languages
l g g
A h l
Archaeology:
A h l
Archaeology
reveals
l cultural/technical
lt l/t h i l innovations
i
ti
emerging
i iin IIndo-China
Indo
d China
Chi att
around the same time as the earliest dating
g of rice:
Th main
The
i peculiarity
li i off the
h incised
i i d & impressed
i
d pottery style
l is
i its
i sudden
dd
appearance aroundd the
th secondd half
h lf off the
th 3rd
3 d millennium
ill i
B.C.E.
B C E in
i Neolithic
N lithi sites
it
distributed in the major
j river plains
p
of mainland Southeast Asia .... Incised &
impressed
p
ppottery
y style
style,
y , moreover,
moreover, does not appear
pp in isolation,
isolation, but it is associated
recurrently
l with:
i h small
ll polished
li h d stone tools;
l stone or shell
h ll bbracelets
l and
d necklace
kl
b d (Rispoli
beads.
(Ri li 2008:238)
2008 238)
Roger
g Blench
l h & I suggest
gg that
h the
h sudden
dd expansion
p i off this
hi di
distinctive
i i ppottery
y style
yl
and
d associated
i t d ttoolkit
lkit and
d ddecorative
ti elements
l
t iis a marker
k off th
the Austroasiatic
A t
i ti
expansion
expansion.
p
With it,
it, the integration
g
of rice farmingg into established Neolithic
tuberculture may
y be been the catalyst
y which sparked
p
the expansion
p
and
di
diversification
ifi i off Austroasiatic.
A
Austroasiatic
i i In
I a version
i off the
h ‘f
‘farming-language’
farming
i language
l
’ hhypothesis
hypothesis,
h i
it is
i the
th greater
t fl
flexibility
ibilit andd productivity
d ti it off the
th new hybrid
h b id farming
f
i system,
t
with
ith
the facilityy to farm dryy rice in areas upland
p
from main waterways
waterways,
y , that facilitated
the
h outwardd East-West spread
p d overland
overland.
l d
We specu
speculatee that there
e ew
wass cu
cultural
u ((non
(non-linguistic)
o linguistic)
gu s c) transmission
s ss o oof rice
ce agriculture
g cu u e
from early
y Tai expansion
p
out of SEChina and into the Mekong
g valley.
valley
y