Alexander wrote
> What does allow you to assert this? All my sources say that the
principal
> crops in Austronesian nations are either rice (in the Western part of
the
> area) or taro and yam (in the Oceanic part of the area). The place of
the
> origin of these crops (at least of the species spread in the relevant
zone)
> is SE Asia, not the Huanghe basin. That's why, IMO, archaeology and
> ethnography claim that AN should belong to the same cluster (the
Austric
> superfamily) as VietNam-Muong, Mon-Khmer, Miao-Yao, Munda and other
folks
> originated from SE Asia where some vegetables and later rice were
> domesticated.
>
> Indeed, millet is cultivated in some regions of the AN area (Taiwan,
Sumatra)
> but nowhere it is the main crop NOW. Maybe you know facts which show
that the
> situation was different several millenia ago? I'd be grateful if you
share
> this information.
I too was under the impression that Austronesian, Mon Khymer and
possibly the Daic family show more connections with each other than
with Sino Tibetan. I do know genertically these people show more
connection with each other, and even with Papua New Guinean and
Australian Aboriginal, than they do with Sino Tibetans. The genetic
evidence is interesting as it shows a clear line of demarcation in
China between the North and the South Chinese. Northern Chinese -
(north of the Yangtse) - show closest genetic similarities with the
Tibetans, Mongol, Manchu and Turkic peoples. Southern Chinese show
greatest similarity to the Miao, Thai, Mon Khmer and Austronesian.
This seems to suggest that Northern China is the site of dissemination
of the languages we today recognise as Chinese, and that substratum
people, of non ST language affiliation were found in the south. This
is what Chinese history itself tells us with Yueh, and Min non Chinese
people once living in South China (presumably some substrate features
of these people can be found beneath the non Mandarin Chinese languages
of the South).
I know the genetic evidence shows two human movements out of Africa.
One very early one was kept out of the upper Middle East by the
presence of the Neanderthaloids. They probably moved along the Arabian
litorial into India and South East Asia by 90,000 years BP. The
widespread AN-AustroAsiatic-Daic group, Papuan and Australian languages
probably all come from this family, but separated so long ago that they
show no connections today. Then 40,000 years ago the Aurignancian (and
later the Gravetian) cultural people, moving from the Middle East into
Ice Age Eurasia carried the Nostratic languages out of Africa.
On genetic grounds, these two waves seem to have more in common with
the Capoid/Cushitic group rather than the Pigmoid, West African
Niger-Kordofanian or the Nilo-Saharan. On genetic grounds these seem
to have separated from the human genome earlier than either of the
other two waves.
I know that languages vary independently from genetics (as witness
Ghanaian English speakers), but people who shift generally carry their
languages with them.
Hope this helps
John