East Asian ethnolinguistic phylogeography

A polyphyletic understanding of Asian linguistic diversity was first propagated in 1823. Since 1901, various scholars have proposed larger linguistic phyla uniting two or more recognised Asian language families. The most recent proposal in this tradition, Starosta’s 2001 East Asian phylum, comprising the Trans-Himalayan, Hmong-Mien, Austroasiatic, Austronesian and Kradai language families, is reassessed in light of linguistic and non-linguistic evidence. Ethnolinguistically informed inferences based on Asian Y chromosomal phylogeography lead to a reconstruction of various episodes of ethnolinguistic prehistory which lie beyond the linguistic event horizon, i.e. at a time depth empirically inaccessible to historical linguistics. The Father Tongue correlation in population genetics, the evidence for refugia during the Last Glacial Maximum and the hypothesis of language families having arisen as the result of demographic bottlenecks in prehistory are shown to be crucial to an understanding of the ethnogenesis of East Asian linguistic phyla. The prehistory of several neighbouring Asian language families is discussed, and the Centripetal Migration model is opposed to the Farming Language Dispersal theory.

The ethnolinguistic identity of the domesticators of Asian rice

Linguistic palaeontology permits the identification of two language families whose linguistic ancestors pose the likeliest candidates for the original domesticators of rice, viz. Hmong-Mien and Austroasiatic. In the 2009 model, the ancient Hmong-Mien was identified as the primary domesticators of Asian rice, and the ancient Austroasiatics as the secondary domesticators. Recent rice genetic research leads to the modification of this model for rice domestication, but falls short of identifying the original locus of rice domestication. At the same time, the precise whereabouts of the Austroasiatic homeland remains disputed. Linguistic evidence unrelated to rice agriculture has been adduced to support a southern homeland for Austroasiatic somewhere within the Bay of Bengal littoral. The implications of new rice genetic research are discussed, the linguistic palaeontological evidence is reassessed, and an enduring problem with the archaeology of rice agriculture is highlighted.

Ethnolinguistic survey of westernmost Arunachal Pradesh: A field worker's impressions

The area between Bhutan in the west, Tibet in the north, the Kameng river in the east and Assam in the south is home to at least six distinct phyla of the Trans-Himalayan (Tibeto-Burman, Sino-Tibetan) language family. These phyla encompass a minimum of 11, but probably 15 or even more mutually unintelligible languages, all showing considerable internal dialect variation. Previous literature provided largely incomplete or incorrect accounts of these phyla. Based on recent field research, this article discusses in detail the several languages of four phyla whose speakers are included in the Monpa Scheduled Tribe, providing the most accurate speaker data, geographical distribution, internal variation and degree of endangerment. The article also provides some insights into the historical background of the area and the impact this has had on the distribution of the ethnolinguistic groups.

Promoting the Diversity of Worldviews

In this paper, for the case of a Bolivian community, we show some of the limitations of the dominant ethnolinguistic approaches to explain the correlations between cultural and biological diversity, namely in the role that local cultures can play to maintain and enhance biodiversity. Without questioning the ethical imperative of conserving the world languages as part of the diversity of life, along with the cultural and biological diversity, we propose a shift to an ontological approach for a more comprehensive understanding of the links between these different kinds of diversities.

Trans-Himalayan

This Trans-Himalayan tale unites two narratives, an historical account of scholarly thinking regarding linguistic phylogeny in eastern Eurasia alongside a reconstruction of the ethnolinguistic prehistory of eastern Eurasia based on linguistic and human population genetic phylogeography. The first story traces the tale of transformation in thought regarding language relationships in eastern Eurasia from Tibeto-Burman to Trans-Himalayan. The path is strewn with defunct family trees such as Indo-Chinese, Sino-Tibetan, Sino-Himalayan and Sino-Kiranti. In the heyday of racism in scholarship, Social Darwinism coloured both language typology and the phylogenetic models of language relationship in eastern Eurasia. Its influential role in the perpetuation of the Indo-Chinese model is generally left untold. The second narrative presents a conjectural reconstruction of the ethnolinguistic prehistory of eastern Eurasia based on possible correlations between genes and language communities. In so doing, biological ancestry and linguistic affinity are meticulously distinguished, a distinction which the language typologists of yore sought to blur, although the independence of language and race was stressed time and again by prominent historical linguists.

A prehistoric thoroughfare between the Ganges and the Himalayas

The greater Himalayan region, including the Tibetan plateau in the north and the Gangetic plain in the south, served as the principal prehistoric thoroughfare for the peopling of East and Southeast Asia. The descendants of ancient migrants through this region ultimately settled lands as far away as New Zealand, Madagascar and the Americas. Several of the keys to understanding the ethnogenesis of human diversity in Asia include the Father Tongue correlation, possible refugia during the Last Glacial Maximum and the hypothesis that language families may have arisen as the result of demographic bottlenecks in prehistory. Ethnolinguistically informed inferences based on Asian Y chromosomal phylogeography permit a reconstruction of episodes of ethnolinguistic prehistory which lie beyond the linguistic event horizon, i.e. beyond the time depth empirically accessible to historical linguistics. The origins of the language families which make up the hypothetical Uralo-Siberian and East Asian linguistic phyla are argued to have lain in the northeastern corner of the Indian subcontinent. Several other Asian language families are shown to be tied to the subcontinent. The Centripetal Migration model, which assumes that migrations in quest of a better life unfolded in both centrifugal and centripetal directions with respect to technologically more advanced centres of civilisation, is opposed to the Farming Language Dispersal theory, which assumes that all linguistic dispersals were driven by agricultural centrifugal migration.