11/18/2023 0 Comments Dia korean linguistThese dates estimate the time-depth of the initial break-up of a given language family into more than one foundational subgroup. Our results indicate a time-depth of 9181 bp (5595–12793 95% highest probability density (95% HPD)) for the Proto-Transeurasian root of the family 6811 bp (4404–10166 95% HPD) for Proto-Altaic, the unity of Turkic, Mongolic and Tungusic languages 4491 bp (2599–6373 95% HPD) for Mongolo-Tungusic and 5458 bp (3335–8024 95% HPD) for Japano-Koreanic (Fig. We applied Bayesian methods to infer a dated phylogeny of the Transeurasian languages (Supplementary Data 24). We collected a new dataset of 3,193 cognate sets that represent 254 basic vocabulary concepts for 98 Transeurasian languages, including dialects and historical varieties (Supplementary Data 1). Recent assessments show that even if many common properties between these languages are indeed due to borrowing 15, 16, 17, there is nonetheless a core of reliable evidence for the classification of Transeurasian as a valid genealogical group 1, 2, 18, 19. The question of whether these five groups descend from a single common ancestor has been the topic of a long-standing debate between supporters of inheritance and borrowing. Transeurasian denotes a large group of geographically adjacent languages stretching across Europe and northern Asia, and includes five uncontroversial linguistic families: Japonic, Koreanic, Tungusic, Mongolic, and Turkic (Fig. The linguistic relatedness of the Transeurasian languages-also known as ‘Altaic’-is among the most disputed issues in linguistic prehistory. ![]() With a few exceptions that are heavily focused on genetics 12, 13, 14 or limited to reviewing existing datasets 4, truly interdisciplinary approaches to Northeast Asia are scarce. Northeast Asia-the vast region encompassing Inner Mongolia, the Yellow, Liao and Amur River basins, the Russian Far East, the Korean peninsula and the Japanese Islands-remains especially under-represented in the recent literature. Compared to western Eurasia 9, 10, 11, however, eastern Eurasia remains poorly understood. Recent breakthroughs in ancient DNA sequencing have made us rethink the connections between human, linguistic and cultural expansions across Eurasia. As well as marking considerable progress in the three individual disciplines, by combining their converging evidence we show that the early spread of Transeurasian speakers was driven by agriculture. Challenging the traditional ‘pastoralist hypothesis’ 6, 7, 8, we show that the common ancestry and primary dispersals of Transeurasian languages can be traced back to the first farmers moving across Northeast Asia from the Early Neolithic onwards, but that this shared heritage has been masked by extensive cultural interaction since the Bronze Age. We report wide-ranging datasets from these disciplines, including a comprehensive Transeurasian agropastoral and basic vocabulary an archaeological database of 255 Neolithic–Bronze Age sites from Northeast Asia and a collection of ancient genomes from Korea, the Ryukyu islands and early cereal farmers in Japan, complementing previously published genomes from East Asia. ![]() ![]() Here we address this question by ‘triangulating’ genetics, archaeology and linguistics in a unified perspective. A key problem is the relationship between linguistic dispersals, agricultural expansions and population movements 4, 5. ![]() The origin and early dispersal of speakers of Transeurasian languages-that is, Japanese, Korean, Tungusic, Mongolic and Turkic-is among the most disputed issues of Eurasian population history 1, 2, 3. Nature volume 599, pages 616–621 ( 2021) Cite this article Triangulation supports agricultural spread of the Transeurasian languages
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |