Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Relationship between Tai-Kradai, Austro-asiatic, and Austronesian


  • Please log in to reply
65 replies to this topic

#16 aocitizen

aocitizen

    Provincial Governor (Cishi 刺史)

  • CHF Rookie Member
  • 30 posts
  • Main Interest in CHF:
    Chinese History
  • Specialisation / Expertise:
    world history, linguistics

Posted 23 January 2011 - 07:13 PM

Do you know, the Wikipedia does not have an article about the Shang city of Ao! As the Ao Citizen, I am rather disappointed. When I tried to look for it, all I got was some scam artists trying to sell me things. By the way, is it Tai-Kadai or Tai-Kradai? I've seen it both ways. Yunnan is a fascinating place, a Garden of Eden for nations as well as useful items. I have heard that both tea and oranges were first cultivared in Yunnan, is this true? A bewildering number of ethnicities make their home in this province, there's something about it that made ancient people want to live there, despite its odd gorges; it's a true crossroads, and a fateful place. The Yellow Emperor (I can't recollect his proper name at the moment) must have been the gentleman who united all of the Huaxia tribes and led them north to the Huang He. No doubt he passed by the Yangtze because the inhabitants were too numerous and hostile. What on earth made him decide to take that fateful step? Perhaps Yunnan was too full of quarrelsome peoples with nothing in common; perhaps he presciently saw that his people could only shine on a less-crowded stage. Well, the ancestors of the Indo-Europeans moved a prodigious distance north from Ethiopia in 10,000 BCE, so I guess it was the same principle. The Hmong people themselves say that their original homeland was in the cold north, and they identify with the Dongyi. They say that the migrants who crossed the "muddy water" (the Yangtze) became the Hmong-Mien, and the ones who crossed the "clear water" (the Yellow Sea) went to a better place, in this case Korea and Japan. The Koreans claim Dongyi ancestry, and the old Japanese rulers (like Himiko) claimed descent from the nobles of Shandong, the Dongyi. Truly this was a crucial people in the development of East Asia.

#17 aocitizen

aocitizen

    Provincial Governor (Cishi 刺史)

  • CHF Rookie Member
  • 30 posts
  • Main Interest in CHF:
    Chinese History
  • Specialisation / Expertise:
    world history, linguistics

Posted 23 January 2011 - 07:31 PM

The Hmong or Miao or Yao were already existing as part of the earlier Austro/Tai/Asiatic family so how can Dongyi that fled due to invasion by the Zhou go on to become the Hmong people unless they were going to absorb the native Yangtze basin peoples? By any chance are you talking about the theory that Hmong clothing and art bears lots of resemblance to Shang dynasty art and patterns and therefore because the Shang in many cases have been characterized to be almost certainly Dongyi (same or approximate regions) that somehow the Hmong must have descended from the Shang and Dongyi?

Hi! This is Aocitizen, replying to MohistManiac. I am just relaying what the Hmong say about themselves, that they come from a cold northern homeland. But you are absolutely right, the Hmong-Mien are of great antiquity, not just from the Zhou era. I think it is quite likely that the Dongyi fleeing to the Yangtze found there people closely related to themselves (the actual Hmong-Mien). The Dongyi who settled among them assimilated and passed on the culture of the north. Yes, the Shang were almost certainly Dongyi, but ones who assimilated to the Huaxia civilization. I believe that the Old Chinese incorporated many Dongyi features into their Sino-Tibetan matrix, and are a good example of cultural fusion. I think that the Dongyi were a northern branch of the Hmong who had little trouble fitting in with their relatives on the Yangtze. Thank you for bringing up your excellent point.

#18 mohistManiac

mohistManiac

    Emperor (Huangdi 皇帝)

  • Master Scholar (Juren)
  • 3,576 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Main Interest in CHF:
    Chinese Mythology
  • Specialisation / Expertise:
    none

Posted 23 January 2011 - 08:19 PM

Hi! This is Aocitizen, replying to MohistManiac. I am just relaying what the Hmong say about themselves, that they come from a cold northern homeland. But you are absolutely right, the Hmong-Mien are of great antiquity, not just from the Zhou era. I think it is quite likely that the Dongyi fleeing to the Yangtze found there people closely related to themselves (the actual Hmong-Mien). The Dongyi who settled among them assimilated and passed on the culture of the north. Yes, the Shang were almost certainly Dongyi, but ones who assimilated to the Huaxia civilization. I believe that the Old Chinese incorporated many Dongyi features into their Sino-Tibetan matrix, and are a good example of cultural fusion. I think that the Dongyi were a northern branch of the Hmong who had little trouble fitting in with their relatives on the Yangtze. Thank you for bringing up your excellent point.


Of course this is also going to be characterized as speculation only but basically if we take the Huaxia yellow river people, Dongyi Shang, and Zhou western barbarians to be all different peoples then the region in the north should be an even greater crossroads than the south. Since in the north/central plains considering some 5000 years ago that region would be considered one of the terminus points from different peoples all over and the people that fled during the rise of the Zhou could have been any combination of those 3 different groups of people not just the Shang. However if the Hmong people had already existed away from the northern region before the rise of the Zhou which would have been the point I was making earlier then the people that were fleeing the wars coming down south would either A) Displace or intermingle extensively with natives so as to skew previous Hmong identity or B ) These people were the Hmong and there is no such thing as Dongyi Shang becoming the Hmong.

Edited by mohistManiac, 23 January 2011 - 08:20 PM.

I have the fortune of living in the part of the world which has use for toilet paper, but not douches.

#19 aocitizen

aocitizen

    Provincial Governor (Cishi 刺史)

  • CHF Rookie Member
  • 30 posts
  • Main Interest in CHF:
    Chinese History
  • Specialisation / Expertise:
    world history, linguistics

Posted 23 January 2011 - 08:47 PM

This is pure speculation.

The sinitic and tibeto-burman people originated from Kunlun mountain in Qinghai and NOT yunnan.

http://www.chinacult...ntent_34924.htm

If they originated from yunnan, wouldn't the mekong river or yangtze river make for the earliest sinitic civilisation as they are the nearest to yunnan ?

Instead it was the yellow river which is closest to the Kunlun mountain. The sinitic branch migrated east while the tibetan branch migrated south to tibet. Qinghai is still very close to the earliest civilisation of the Han chinese which is near the yellow river which I believe is modern day shaanxi province.

Migration to burma is only a recent event.

Hi, thank you for your input. I have heard the Kunlun theory before, what is the evidence? Please see the Forumgarden thread called Where do the Chinese come from?, by a gentleman named China Watcher. He presents extensive genetic evidence that the Chinese people originally came from southwest China. I think it's entirely likely that the Tibetan people came originally from the Kunlun, so the Sino-Tibetan component of the Huaxia must have come from there too. But Sinitic contains a substrate of Austroasiatic which is entirely absent in Tibetan, and there are no Austroasiatics in the Kunlun. I think the ancestors of the Huaxia may have migrated with the rest of the Tibetans from Kunlun to Yunnan; they became a distinct Sinitic people when they mingled with Austroasiatics, who are numerous in Yunnan. As for why they passed the Yangtze by, that valley may have contained inhabitants too numerous and warlike for the Huaxia to conquer; the Huang He valley may have presented an easier target. Around 10,000 BCE, the Nostratic people migrated from Ethiopia to the Middle East, bypassing many other regions on the way. Sometimes people migrate to very distant places. The Sumerians migrated from Siberia to the Euphrates. The Tocharians migrated from the Baltic to China. I think you are right when you say Sino-Tibetans in general originated in the Kunlun, but I think the Sinitic branch must have started in Yunnan. The closest relatives of the Chinese, the Bai people, still live in Yunnan.

Edited by aocitizen, 23 January 2011 - 10:38 PM.


#20 aocitizen

aocitizen

    Provincial Governor (Cishi 刺史)

  • CHF Rookie Member
  • 30 posts
  • Main Interest in CHF:
    Chinese History
  • Specialisation / Expertise:
    world history, linguistics

Posted 23 January 2011 - 10:27 PM

Of course this is also going to be characterized as speculation only but basically if we take the Huaxia yellow river people, Dongyi Shang, and Zhou western barbarians to be all different peoples then the region in the north should be an even greater crossroads than the south. Since in the north/central plains considering some 5000 years ago that region would be considered one of the terminus points from different peoples all over and the people that fled during the rise of the Zhou could have been any combination of those 3 different groups of people not just the Shang. However if the Hmong people had already existed away from the northern region before the rise of the Zhou which would have been the point I was making earlier then the people that were fleeing the wars coming down south would either A) Displace or intermingle extensively with natives so as to skew previous Hmong identity or B ) These people were the Hmong and there is no such thing as Dongyi Shang becoming the Hmong.

Yes, the Huang He was a huge convergence point of different cultures, and the modern Chinese people had their primary starting point there. But, like almost all nationalities, the Chinese are a fusion of component parts from different origins. The Dongyi were not Sino-Tibetan, whatever else they were. The Hmong themselves say the Dongyi are their relatives; but if this is erroneous, and the Dongyi were not Hmong-related, they were certainly Austroasiatic. How do we know this? It was Dongyi migrants from Shandong who contributed the main non-Altaic substrate to Korean and Japanese. The Koreans assert that many Dongyi came to Korea, and claim Dongyi heritage. The Japanese makeup is more complex, but the early royalty of Japan, notably Himiko, told Chinese visitors that their house was descended from eastern Chinese nobles who were almost certainly Dongyi refugees. The final Zhou conquest of Shandong took place around 500 BCE. The Yayoi invasions of Japan from Korea began shortly after that date. Korean and Japanese contain a substrate which sets them apart from the other Altaic languages, and that element came from China, but was not Sinitic. If you could learn exactly what that substrate was, you could determine exactly who the Dongyi were. It is clear that the substrate was Austric, although which branch may still be obscure. Perhaps more research will bring to light a more certain identity.

#21 aocitizen

aocitizen

    Provincial Governor (Cishi 刺史)

  • CHF Rookie Member
  • 30 posts
  • Main Interest in CHF:
    Chinese History
  • Specialisation / Expertise:
    world history, linguistics

Posted 23 January 2011 - 11:02 PM

So you mean when the ancient people migrated to new land and mixed with another groups, the two languages influenced each others and formed a new language?




I know this is old but it's interesting. I don't know why Chinese dialects couldn't preserves the old Chinese but other countries can in some extend. For example in Sino-Vietnamese. 土 is thổ, 水 is thủy , 姊 is chị, 石 is đ.
I'm not sure about Sino-Korean or Sino-Japanese.

Hi SkllZ, this is Aocitizen replying to your post. Two of the processes of new language formation are fission and fusion. An example of fission would be Tai-Kradai and Austronesian splitting away from each other after the latter relocated to Taiwan. Many languages are formed when two or more populations having different languages combine into one nationality. English is a combination of Norman French and Anglo-Saxon, with an additional infusion of Danish. Korean and Japanese have a substrate which sets them apart from the other Altaic languages, and Old Chinese has an Austronesian substrate which sets it apart from Tibetan. I don't think there is a Sino-Korean or Sino-Japanese language family, I think they are Altaic languages with substrates that came from East China. Those substrates were not Sinitic, they were Austric of a kind, probably Austroasiatic. Before the Chinese came from the southwest or west, most of China was inhabited by Austric peoples of different branches. The languages of South China clearly derive from Old Chinese, but have substrates of Old Thai or Old Vietnamese as well, which makes them different from Mandarin. The difficulty with Old Chinese is that it is represented by pictograms, not an alphabet, which makes it harder to determine the phonetic values of the old words. Progress is nonetheless being made. See the article on Old Chinese in Wikipedia, it shows many comparisons like the ones you are giving. I think it's absolutely fascinating that Tai-Kadai words and Austronesian words can be shown to be different halves of the words in the original language.

#22 xng

xng

    Emperor (Huangdi 皇帝)

  • CHF Han Lin Scholar
  • 4,255 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Languages spoken:English, Cantonese, Minnan, Mandarin, Singlish, Thai
  • Ethnic Groups or Race:Han Chinese
  • Main Interest in CHF:
    Chinese Language
  • Specialisation / Expertise:
    Chinese Linguistics, Buddhism, East Asian anthropology

Posted 23 January 2011 - 11:15 PM

I think you are right when you say Sino-Tibetans in general originated in the Kunlun, but I think the Sinitic branch must have started in Yunnan. The closest relatives of the Chinese, the Bai people, still live in Yunnan.


The sinitic people could have migrated from Kunlun to Yunnan instead and not the other way around.

As I said, people won't travel great distance if there are nearer great rivers, abundance of resources and better warmer climate nearby, this is illogical.

In 3000 BC there aren't enough people on earth to populate the whole of yangtze and mekong river so your theory falls apart. Even if there were already people there, the sinitic people would have conquered them the same way the zhou and Han dynasty expanded south.

In kunlun, only sino-tibetan lived there all this while until recently; Whereas, all types of ethnic groups live in Yunnan. So this is another strong point to prove that Kunlun is the origin of sino-tibetan people and not Yunnan.

Southern China (including Yunnan) is the homeland of the Tai-Kadai people and not Sino-tibetan.

Edited by xng, 24 January 2011 - 08:16 AM.


#23 qrasy

qrasy

    Emperor (Huangdi 皇帝)

  • CHF Han Lin Scholar
  • 4,743 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Physics, Chemistry, Maths, Biology, Languages, Ethnicity, History, etc.
  • Languages spoken:Mandarin Chinese, Indonesian, English, Cantonese
  • Ethnic Groups or Race:Han Chinese (Southeastern)
  • Main Interest in CHF:
    Other Interests
  • Specialisation / Expertise:
    Chinese Linguistics

Posted 23 January 2011 - 11:35 PM

On this topic, Laurent Sagart is doing some work, and (perhaps temporarily) from his findings he would say that Tai-Kadai is within Austronesian (though not Malayo-Polynesian), and that Austronesian and Sino-Tibetan are closer to each other than to Austro-asiatic.

I know this is old but it's interesting. I don't know why Chinese dialects couldn't preserves the old Chinese but other countries can in some extend. For example in Sino-Vietnamese. 土 is thổ, 水 is thủy , 姊 is chị, 石 is đá.

For the last 2 characters you mixed up literary and colloquial readings;
Sino-Vietnamese should be 姊 tỉ, tỷ 石 thạch.

As I said, people won't travel great distance if there are nearer great rivers, abundance of resources and better warmer climate nearby, this is illogical.

So is there something seriously wrong with East Africa that there are humans who migrated all the way to Himalayas and to Greenland?

In 3000 BC there aren't enough people on earth to populate the whole of yangtze and mekong river so your theory falls apart. Even if there were already people there, the sinitic people would have conquered them the same way the zhou and Han dynasty expanded south.

3000 BC?
Even Yangshao culture is much older than 3000 BC.

Pengtoushan culture (彭頭山文化) even dates back to 7500 BCE – 6100 BCE.

Edited by qrasy, 23 January 2011 - 11:39 PM.

The great enemy of the truth is very often not the liedeliberate, contrived and dishonest, but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic. Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought. - JFK

One thing is for certain: the more profoundly baffled you have been in your life, the more open your mind becomes to new ideas. - Neil deGrasse Tyson

#24 aocitizen

aocitizen

    Provincial Governor (Cishi 刺史)

  • CHF Rookie Member
  • 30 posts
  • Main Interest in CHF:
    Chinese History
  • Specialisation / Expertise:
    world history, linguistics

Posted 24 January 2011 - 06:17 PM

The sinitic people could have migrated from Kunlun to Yunnan instead and not the other way around.

As I said, people won't travel great distance if there are nearer great rivers, abundance of resources and better warmer climate nearby, this is illogical.

In 3000 BC there aren't enough people on earth to populate the whole of yangtze and mekong river so your theory falls apart. Even if there were already people there, the sinitic people would have conquered them the same way the zhou and Han dynasty expanded south.

In kunlun, only sino-tibetan lived there all this while until recently; Whereas, all types of ethnic groups live in Yunnan. So this is another strong point to prove that Kunlun is the origin of sino-tibetan people and not Yunnan.

Southern China (including Yunnan) is the homeland of the Tai-Kadai people and not Sino-tibetan.

Hi, xng, this is aocitizen, replying to your post. I think you misunderstand me. I did say that the Tibetan part of the Huaxia migrated from the Kunlun to Yunnan. They didn't become the separate Sinitic branch of Sino-Tibetan until they mixed with Austroasiatics there. If people will not migrate a great distance when there are major rivers nearby, then how do you explain the Tocharians, who are known to have migrated from the area of Estonia all the way to Kansu, a distance of migration considerably greater than I am claiming for the Huaxia. Please read China Watcher's thread in Forumgardens. He presents extensive genetic evidence that the Chinese come from southwest China, I am not making this up. All I am saying is that, though the Huaxia are indisputably Sino-Tibetan, something must have happened somewhere to make them different from Tibetans, a fusion with another people. In addition, how do you explain that Sino-Tibetan is a branch of Dene-Caucasian? There must have been an incredibly long migration from the Caucasus to the Kunlun for this to be so. Mr. China Watcher explains in his thread that many present-day Chinese people would prefer to be associated with the Koreans and Japanese, and that they are resistant to the idea that they may have come from the foreign south. But he presents very convincing genetic evidence for Yunnan. Please read it and tell me what you think. Respectfully yours, Aocitizen.

Edited by aocitizen, 24 January 2011 - 06:19 PM.


#25 aocitizen

aocitizen

    Provincial Governor (Cishi 刺史)

  • CHF Rookie Member
  • 30 posts
  • Main Interest in CHF:
    Chinese History
  • Specialisation / Expertise:
    world history, linguistics

Posted 24 January 2011 - 07:00 PM

You're all going to love this! There is a new proposal for a super language family called Dene-Daic, which makes Sino-Tibetan (plus all of its numerous relatives such as Abkhazi, Yeniseian, and Navajo) directly related to all of the Austric languages in one ancient grouping. This would make most of the peoples of China and adjacent areas originally one big nationality. So it comes full circle.

#26 aocitizen

aocitizen

    Provincial Governor (Cishi 刺史)

  • CHF Rookie Member
  • 30 posts
  • Main Interest in CHF:
    Chinese History
  • Specialisation / Expertise:
    world history, linguistics

Posted 25 January 2011 - 12:17 AM

On this topic, Laurent Sagart is doing some work, and (perhaps temporarily) from his findings he would say that Tai-Kadai is within Austronesian (though not Malayo-Polynesian), and that Austronesian and Sino-Tibetan are closer to each other than to Austro-asiatic.

For the last 2 characters you mixed up literary and colloquial readings;
Sino-Vietnamese should be 姊 tỉ, tỷ 石 thạch.

So is there something seriously wrong with East Africa that there are humans who migrated all the way to Himalayas and to Greenland?

3000 BC?
Even Yangshao culture is much older than 3000 BC.

Pengtoushan culture (彭頭山文化) even dates back to 7500 BCE 6100 BCE.

Hi Qrasy, this is Aocitizen. So now, instead of Tai-Austronesian, we have Tai-Kradai as a divergent branch of Austronesian? Wow! Is this due to a reflux of Austronesians back to Fukien from Taiwan? Uh-oh, if Austronesian may be closer to Sino-Tibetan than Austroasiatic, then what becomes of Austric? And where does Hmong-Mien fit into all this? What do you think of the Dene-Daic thesis? That would mean most of the languages of Asia began in the Caucasus! It is amazing how much progress linguistics is making these days, little of this was known when I was a kid.

#27 aocitizen

aocitizen

    Provincial Governor (Cishi 刺史)

  • CHF Rookie Member
  • 30 posts
  • Main Interest in CHF:
    Chinese History
  • Specialisation / Expertise:
    world history, linguistics

Posted 25 January 2011 - 12:27 AM

Hi, Aocitizen here. Some people seem to be having trouble getting their minds around the concept that the Huaxia (the Old Chinese) may have migrated to the Huang He from Yunnan. Their main objection seems to be: Why would the Huaxia pass by the Yangtze, which is closer and on their way? Well, they may not have. They may have lived for a while in the Yangtze valley, decided they disliked it and could do better, and moved on. Think of how many times the Visigoths settled down and pulled up roots. I am not disagreeing with the popular thesis that the Sino-Tibetans had their urheimat in the Kunlun. I am merely saying that the Sinitic branch, in the form of the Huaxia, separated from the Sino-Tibetan trunk in Yunnan many centuries later as a result of language admixture. The Bai people might be either a thoroughly Sinicized Tibeto-Burman tribe, or a linguistic sibling to the Huaxia.

Edited by aocitizen, 25 January 2011 - 12:30 AM.


#28 aocitizen

aocitizen

    Provincial Governor (Cishi 刺史)

  • CHF Rookie Member
  • 30 posts
  • Main Interest in CHF:
    Chinese History
  • Specialisation / Expertise:
    world history, linguistics

Posted 25 January 2011 - 01:32 AM

If one looks at a map of China, you will immediately see that the Yangtze River rises in the Kunlun Mountains. The Sino-Tibetan people probably originated at the headwaters of the Yangtze. If anyone wanted to leave that area, the easiest way would have been to follow the Yangtze south; it would have been harder to cross mountain ranges to reach the Huang He. The Yangtze leads south, directly to Yunnan. I believe that one of the main routes of Tibetan migration was south along the Yangtze to Yunnan. Among those Tibetans who moved south to Yunnan were some who mixed with the Austroasiatics they found there. These were the ancestors of the Sinitic people, the Old Chinese, the Huaxia. I believe these people undertook a monumental journey to the Huang He sometime around 2500 BCE. They never had to cross the Mekong, it was behind them. They left Yunnan as they came, following the Yangtze River; this time they followed it east. They could have spent some time in the Szechwan Basin before they settled on the Huang He valley as their final destination. When they reached the Yellow River, they conquered and melded with the Dongyi indigenous population, who were some sort of Austrics, probably relatives of the Hmong-Mien. This fateful blending resulted in the formation of the nucleus of the modern Chinese people.

Edited by aocitizen, 25 January 2011 - 01:35 AM.


#29 baybal

baybal

    Imperial Inspector (Jianyushi 监御使)

  • Entry Scholar (Xiucai)
  • 176 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Main Interest in CHF:
    Asian History
  • Specialisation / Expertise:
    Altaics/Sayan-Atlay plains civilistaions

Posted 25 January 2011 - 04:19 AM

Interesting theory about Altaic co-influence

水 - is " Suu' " in most Turkic languages, and Uu in Sakha
天 - has almost same pronunciation in most of Altaic languages as Tang or Ten. And is "g'haghan" or "halan" in Sakha depending on the region
I can put much more of common words.

#30 mohistManiac

mohistManiac

    Emperor (Huangdi 皇帝)

  • Master Scholar (Juren)
  • 3,576 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Main Interest in CHF:
    Chinese Mythology
  • Specialisation / Expertise:
    none

Posted 25 January 2011 - 05:40 AM

Hi, Aocitizen here. Some people seem to be having trouble getting their minds around the concept that the Huaxia (the Old Chinese) may have migrated to the Huang He from Yunnan. Their main objection seems to be: Why would the Huaxia pass by the Yangtze, which is closer and on their way? Well, they may not have. They may have lived for a while in the Yangtze valley, decided they disliked it and could do better, and moved on. Think of how many times the Visigoths settled down and pulled up roots. I am not disagreeing with the popular thesis that the Sino-Tibetans had their urheimat in the Kunlun. I am merely saying that the Sinitic branch, in the form of the Huaxia, separated from the Sino-Tibetan trunk in Yunnan many centuries later as a result of language admixture. The Bai people might be either a thoroughly Sinicized Tibeto-Burman tribe, or a linguistic sibling to the Huaxia.


But the Huang He was just a single terminus point among many although it does seem to be the more significant one due to the fertile landscape that was nice and flat. There most likely were settlers in the Yangtze derived from the pools of people coming from the southwest which eventually inhabited the yellow river region. And there most likely were settlers of the yellow river which came from the Yangtze itself meaning people of the Austro/Tai. That may be a hell of a way for the southwestern Sinotibetans to meet up again with people they were sure had been left behind on their first try with obtaining a river settlement.
I have the fortune of living in the part of the world which has use for toilet paper, but not douches.




2 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users