Urheimat - Wikipedia, The F..

Urheimat - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dravidian_homeland#Dravidian_homeland
Urheimat
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Dravidian homeland)

Urheimat (/rhamt/; German pronunciation: [uhamat]; a German compound of Ur- "primitive,
original" and Heimat "home, homeland") is a linguistic term that denotes the homeland of the speakers of a
proto-language. A proto-language is a reconstruction of a hypothetical parent language in the tree model of
language evolution. As the placement of branches is often uncertain, the time, location, and very existence
of an urheimat is also often uncertain. However, it is possible to have considerable confidence regarding the
location of an urheimat of a language or language family from multiple lines of linguistic, genetic and
archaeological evidence, even when the precise contours of a proto-language are not firmly established.
Archaeological evidence is sometimes adduced to support the existence of an urheimat. In the 19th century
and the first half of the 20th century, the prevailing belief was that languages could be reliably associated
with archaeological cultures. This culture history theory, developed by Gustaf Kossinna, formalized the
presumption that unified ethnicities, such as peoples or tribes, could be associated with archaeological
cultures. One might point to a culture map and hazard a guess as to which language, typically a protolanguage, was spoken in each culture.
In the latter part of the twentieth century, the link between archaeological cultures and language boundaries
was weakened by the discovery of cases in which language shifts occurred with only minor differences in
cultural artifacts. This article summarizes some of the leading, and sometimes competing, urheimat proposals
for some of the larger or more carefully studied language families.
Contents
1 Language families predominantly found in Europe, North Asia and South Asia
1.1 Indo-European homelands
1.2 Dravidian homeland
1.3 Uralic homeland
1.4 Turkic homeland
1.5 Yeniseian
1.6 Other groups
2 Language families predominantly found in Africa and Southwest Asia
2.1 Khoisan homeland
2.2 Afro-Asiatic homeland
2.3 Nilo-Saharan homeland
2.4 NigerCongo homeland
2.5 Malagasy language homeland
3 Language families predominantly found in East Asia, Southeast Asia and Oceania
3.1 Sino-Tibetan homeland
3.2 Austroasiatic homeland
3.3 HmongMien homeland
3.4 Austronesian homeland
1 of Print
34 to PDF without this message by purchasing novaPDF (http://www.novapdf.com/)
07-07-2014 18:50
3.5 TaiKadai homeland

3.6 Mongolic homeland
3.7 Japanese and Korean language homelands
3.8 Other groups
4 Languages spoken predominantly in North and South America
4.1 Na-Dene
4.2 Eskimo-Aleut
4.3 Uto-Aztecan
4.4 Tupian
4.5 Other groups
5 Implications of current research
6 Limitations of the concept of Urheimat
6.1 Creoles
6.2 Isolates
6.3 Shared urheimats
7 See also
8 Footnotes
9 References
Language families predominantly found in Europe, North Asia and

South Asia
Indo-European homelands
Proto-Indo-European homeland
Early efforts to identify the homeland of the Proto-Indo-European language speakers focused on the
presence or absence of geographical indicator words. For example, such words as beech and salmon
indicated a location within the range of those genera in the north temperate zone. The word for "ocean" was
missing, suggesting an inland location. Words that did not fit this geographical location, such as lion, could
be explained by more recent borrowings.
Many hypotheses for an Urheimat have been proposed. Mallory said,[1] "One does not ask 'where is the
Indo-European homeland?' but rather 'where do they put it now?'" He also states that current discussion of
the Indo-European homeland problem is largely confined to four basic models, with variations:[2]
1. The Baltic-Pontic(-Caspian) region in the Mesolithic. The Funnel beaker culture, the Globular
Amphora culture, and the Corded Ware culture are possible archaeological representatives of the
proto-language speakers, in this theory as it is commonly expressed.
2. Anatolia: Early Neolithic, 7000-6000 BC. Not only is there no supporting archaeology, but
archaeology and word archaeology are to the contrary.
3. Central Europe-Balkans: Early Neolithic, c. 5000 BC. At least part of the Linear Pottery Culture is
2 ofPrint
07-07-2014 18:50
within the range.

4. Pontic-Caspian: Eneolithic, c. 4500-3000 BC. Typically the collection of similar cultures called the
Kurgan culture are presented as supporting the reconstructed Indo-European customs.
Other, less accepted models select the Indian subcontinent:
1. Indian Urheimat Theory
2. Indigenous Aryans Theory
Some minor hypotheses are:
1. The Armenian hypothesis was suggested by Soviet scholars in the 1980s
2. the Paleolithic Continuity Theory was suggested by Italian "paleolinguist" Mario Alinei in the 1990s.
Earlier Indo-European phylogenies featured an initial split into Centum and Satem languages, a distinction
formally based on the word for the number one hundred in each group's supposed proto-language. Today,
one phonetic character is hardly enough to define a proto-language. Furthermore, languages studied better or
discovered subsequently (including Armenian, the extinct Anatolian languages such as Hittite and the extinct
Tocharian language of the Tarim basin of Asia) were not compatible with any such genetic distinction.
Instead, the former shared innovation became the Centum Satem isogloss, which did not have to conform to
language boundaries or represent any major change of language. It produced dialects instead.
Proto-Anatolian homeland
Proto-Anatolian was the parent language of the Anatolian languages, which are attested only by inscriptions
found in Anatolia and a few exports. It is the only group to feature an explicit remnant of the laryngeals,
sounds that disappeared in late Proto-Indo-European. It is therefore identified as the first branch,
chronologically, which means that the ancestral Proto-Anatolians were first to become isolated from the
Indo-European speech community.
Of the two ways separation could have occurred, the model of an entry into Anatolia from the north prevails.
Indo-European culture featured horses. They were at first hunted and then domesticated on the plains of
Asia, not in Anatolia. The other alternative, that all the other Indo-Europeans left Anatolia, leaving a
population behind, does not account for the presence of a Hattic interface in Anatolian, but in none of the
others.
That same Hattic interface suggests that Anatolia was not entirely the place where Proto-Anatolian formed,
but rather the latter encountered the substrate on entering Anatolia and adjusted itself accordingly. The
concept of Indo-Hittite fits a Proto-Anatolian outside of Anatolia, but it was used primarily to refer to an
early stage of Proto-Indo-European, before the first separation. Anthony therefore narrows the meaning of
Proto-Anatolian to "the language that was immediately ancestral to the three known daughter languages that
entered Anatolia as Pre-Anatolian."[3] He defines the language phases between Proto-Indo-European and
Proto-Anatolian as Pre-Anatolian.
Proto-Tocharian homeland
Proto-Italo-Celtic homeland
A likely candidate for the homeland of an Italo-Celtic proto-language or dialect continuum is the Urnfield
culture and its predecessor, the Tumulus culture of Central Europe (1600 BC).
3 ofPrint
07-07-2014 18:50
Proto-Italic homeland
Candidates for the first introduction of Proto-Italic speakers to Italy are the Terramare culture (1500 BC) or
the Villanovan culture (1100 BC), although the latter is now usually identified with the non-Italic (indeed,
non-Indo-European) Etruscan civilisation.
The Romance languages are all derivative of Latin, a member of this Indo-European language subfamily,
which was the common language of the Western Roman Empire that had its roots in Italic dialect spoken in
and around the capital, Rome, until the empire collapsed in the 5th century CE.
Proto-Celtic homeland
The Proto-Celtic homeland is usually located in the Early Iron Age Hallstatt culture of northern Austria.
There is a broad consensus that the center of the La Tne culture lay on the northwest edges of the Hallstatt
culture. Pre-La Tne (6th to 5th century BC) Celtic expansions reached Great Britain and Ireland (Insular
Celtic) and Gaul. La Tne groups expanded in the 4th century BC to Iberia, the Po Valley, the Balkans, and
even as far as Galatia in Asia Minor, in the course of several major migrations.
Albanian homeland
The history of the Daco-Thracian/Thraco-Illyrian dialects of the Balkans is obscure, in part, because the
written record of these languages is fragmentary. One of these languages may have been the language that
evolved into the modern Albanian language.
Proto-Germanic homeland
Pre-Germanic cultures were the bearers of the Nordic Bronze Age. Proto-Germanic proper is hypothesized
by some to have developed in the Jastorf culture of the Pre-Roman Iron Age.[4]
4 ofPrint
07-07-2014 18:50
Proto-Greek homeland
The Phrygian, Macedonian, and Greek proto-languages likely also
originate in the Balkans.
Armenian homeland
Proto-Armenian may also be Balkans (Greco-Phrygian) derived, or at
least strongly influenced by a Phrygian substrate. The Phrygian
influence on [pre-]Proto-Armenian would date to about the 7th century
BC, in the context of the declining kingdom of Urartu.
Map of the Nordic Bronze Age
culture, c. 1200 BC
Proto-Balto-Slavic homeland
The Balto-Slavic homeland largely corresponds to the
historical distribution of Baltic and Slavic.
Proto-Baltic homeland
Proto-Baltic likely emerging in the eastern parts of the

Corded Ware horizon.
Proto-Slavic homeland
The Slavic languages experience a major expansion

starting around the 6th century CE, in some cases
supplanting earlier Indo-European languages in the
region to which they expanded.
Approximate extent of the Corded Ware horizon with

adjacent 3rd millennium cultures (after EIEC).
The Slavic homeland likely corresponds to the distribution of the oldest recognisably Slavic hydronyms,
found in northern and western Ukraine and southern Belarus.
Proto-Indo-Iranian homeland
The Proto-Indo-Iranians are widely identified with the bearers of the Andronovo horizon of the late 3rd and
early 2nd millennia BC, with the various languages of the Indo-Iranian language family starting to
differentiate from Proto-Indo-Iranian around 2000 BCE.
There are three language families within the Indo-Iranian language family that derived from the ProtoIndo-Iranian language: the Indo-Aryan languages, such as Hindi, Urdu, Bengali, and other Indo-European
languages of South Asia; the Iranian languages, e.g. Persian, Kurdish and Pashto of West Asia and Central
Asia; and the Nuristani languages spoken in eastern Afghanistan.
The Indo-Aryan languages are all descendants of the Sanskrit language, which it at least as old as 1500 BCE,
where Indo-Aryan linguistic features were historically attested by the Hittites in the Mittani language of
Western Iran, and was a single Old Aryan language as recently as the 4th century BCE, when it was
standardized in written form. Some scholars associate the Cemetery H culture of the Northern Indus River
Valley (specifically Western Punjab) ca. 1900 BCE with the original Indo-Aryan population of South Asia.
The community that originally spoke the Sanskrit language is also called the Vedic civiliation after their
semi-legendary account of their community found in Hindu scriptures called the Vedas during the Vedic
period from ca. 1700 BCE to ca. 320 BCE. The archaeological cultures in South Asia described as Black and
Red Ware (10th century BCE) and the later Painted Gray Ware (starting ca. 900 BCE) and subsequently the
Northern Black Polished Ware (ca. 500 BCE) are all commonly associated with the Sanskrit language
5 ofPrint
07-07-2014 18:50
speaking Indo-Aryans during the Vedic period.

The Iranian languages split into Eastern and Western branches in what are known as the Middle Iranian
languages around the 4th century BCE. The Iranian Avestan language of Zoroastrian scripture is committed
to writing at about this point but was in existence and historically attested long before a script was devised
for it. The Median language was the language of the Median empire of western and central Iran (ca. 700559
BC). The language of the Scythian people of Central Asia, whose interactions with the Greeks in 512 BCE
were attested by Herodotus ca. 440 BCE, was also an Iranian language.
There is some dispute over whether the Dardic languages (spoken in northern Pakistan, eastern Afghanistan,
and the Indian region of Jammu and Kashmir, most prominently the Kashmiri language) are Indo-Aryan,
Iranian or part of the Nurustani languages. This issue of classification is clouded by the nationalistic
implications of such a classification for the political affiliations of the contested Kashmir region of South
Asia and by the fact that the Dardic languages are spoken in an area that borders the region where each of
the other Indo-Iranian language families is spoken.
Dravidian homeland
The Dravidian languages have been found mainly in South India
since at least the second century BCE (inscriptions, ed. I. Mahadevan
2003). It is, however, a widely held hypothesis that Dravidian
speakers may have been more widespread throughout India,
including the northwest region,[5] before the arrival of
Indo-European speakers. A map showing where Dravidian languages
are spoken today appears to the right.
Historical records suggest that the South Dravidian language group
had separated from a Proto-Dravidian language no later than 700
BCE, linguistic evidence suggests that they probably became
distinctive around 1,100 BCE,[6] and some scholars using linguistic
methods put the deepest divisions in the language group at roughly
3,000 BCE. Russian linguist M.S. Andronov puts the split between
Tamil (a written Southern Dravidian language) and Telugu (a written
Central Dravidian language) between 1,500 BCE and 1,000 BCE.[7]
Modern Dravidian languages
Southworth identifies late Proto-Dravidian with the Southern Neolithic culture in the lower Godavari River
basin of South Central India, which first appeared ca. 2,500 BCE, based upon its agricultural vocabulary,
while noting that this "would not preclude the possibility that speakers of an earlier stage of Dravidian
entered the subcontinent from western or central Asia, as has often been suggested."[8]
Speculations regarding the original homeland have centered on the Indus Valley Civilization or on Elam
(whose Elamite language was spoken in the hills to the east of the ancient Sumerian civilization with whom
the Indus Valley Civilization traded and shared domesticated species) in an Elamo-Dravidian hypothesis, but
results have not been convincing. The possibility that the language family is indigenous to the Dravidian area
and is a truly isolated genetic unit has also not been ruled out.
Prof. Asko Parpola (University of Helsinki), the Jesuit priest Father Heras in the 1930s and other scholars
(such as Indian and early Tamil expert Iravatham Mahadevan and Prof. Walter A. Fairservis Jr.) conclude
that the Indus sign system represented an ancient Dravidian language, a view that they assume is supported
by Tamil artifacts discovered in 2006.[9] Thus, in Parpola's view, the urheimat of Dravidian would be in the
Indus River Valley. However, Harvard Indologist Michael Witzel takes the viewthat has received serious
academic consideration (ca. 2004)which is critical of an Indus Valley Civilization Dravidian homeland and
of the widely held view that the inscriptions of the Indus Valley Civilization even constitute a written
6 ofPrint
07-07-2014 18:50
language.[10] In the essay "Substrate Languages in Old Indo-Aryan" (with RV in this context referring to
Rigvedic, i.e. Indo-Aryan), Witzel says "As we can no longer reckon with Dravidian influence on the early
RV, this means that the language of the pre-Rigvedic Indus civilization, at least in the Panjab, was of (Para-)
Austroasiatic nature." There are no written examples of Austroasiatic languages being spoken further west
than Central India during the recent historical era (i.e., in the era for which we have written records).
Recent studies of the distribution of alleles on the Y chromosome,[11] microsatellite DNA,[12] and
mitochondrial DNA[13] in India have cast doubt for a biological Dravidian "race" distinct from
non-Dravidians in the Indian subcontinent;[14] other recent genetic studies have found evidence of Aryan,
Dravidian and pre-Dravidian (original Asian) strata in South Asian populations.[15] Geneticist Luigi Luca
Cavalli-Sforza proposes that a Dravidian people were preceded in India by Austroasiatic people, and were
present prior to the arrival of Indo-Aryan language speakers in India.[16]
Uralic homeland
The Uralic homeland is unknown. A
possible locus is the Comb Ceramic
Culture of ca 4200 ca 2000 BC (shown
on the map to the right). This is
suggested by the high language diversity
around the middle Volga River, where
three highly distinct branches of the
Uralic family, Mordvinic, Mari, and
Permic, are located. Reconstructed plant
and animal names (including spruce,
Siberian pine, Siberian Fir, Siberian larch,
brittle willow, elm, and hedgehog) are
consistent with this location. This is
adjacent to the proposed homeland for
Proto-Indo-European under the Kurgan
hypothesis.
French anthropologist Bernard Sergent,
in La Gense de l'Inde (1997),[17] argued
Neolithic period
that Finno-Ugric (Uralic) may have a
genetic source or have borrowed
significantly from proto-Dravidian or a predecessor language of West African origins. Some linguists see
Uralic (Hungarian, Finnish) as having a linguistic relationship to both Altaic (Turkic, Mongol) language
groups[18] (as in the outdated Ural-Altaic hypothesis) and Dravidian languages. The theory that the
Dravidian languages display similarities with the Uralic language group, suggesting a prolonged period of
contact in the past,[19] is popular amongst Dravidian linguists and has been supported by a number of
scholars, including Robert Caldwell,[20] Thomas Burrow,[21] Kamil Zvelebil,[22] and Mikhail Andronov.[23]
This theory has, however, been rejected by some specialists in Uralic languages,[24] and has in recent times
also been criticised by other Dravidian linguists like the late Bhadriraju Krishnamurti.[25]
As noted below, many notable linguists have proposed that the Eskimo-Aleut languages and Uralic languages
have a common origin, although there is no consensus that this connection is genuine.
Turkic homeland
7 ofPrint
07-07-2014 18:50
There is considerable dispute over the time and place of

origin of the Turkic languages, but it is undisputed that
their origins are not in or near the countries named after
the language group, Turkey, a.k.a. Anatolia, and
Turkmenistan. The people of Anatolia spoke
Indo-European language family languages from at least
the time of the Hittite Empire (whose expansion to most
of Anatolia started ca. 2000 BCE), which is the earliest
The Countries and autonomous regions where a
evidence of Indo-European languages in the region
Turkic language has official status.
attested historically (some non-Indo-European languages
were spoken in at least some parts of Anatolia for some
substantial periods of time prior to the Hittite empire) until the Persian Sassanid Empire collapsed in 651 CE.
The Turkic languages are now spoken in Turkey, Central Asia and Siberia. The Turkic peoples originated in
"the Far East including North China, especially Xinjiang Province and Inner Mongolia with parts of
Mongolia and Siberia possibly as far west as Lake Baikal and the Altai Mountains. They may have been
among the peoples of the multi-ethnic historical Saka known as early as the Greek writer Herodotus.
Certainly identified Turkic tribes were known by the 6th century and, by the 10th century, most of Central
Asia, formerly dominated by Iranian peoples, was settled by Turkic tribes. The Seljuk Turks from the 11th
century invaded Anatolia, ultimately resulting in permanent Turkic settlement there and the establishment of
the nation of Turkey."
The first possibly Turkic peoples to arrive in Europe were the Huns, who were at war with the Roman
Empire in the 4th century CE. Confusingly, the Hungarian language is not a Turkic language (it is a Uralic
language related to languages like the Finnish language and Estonian language) and was not spoken by the
Huns.
Prior to the Turkic migration, Indo-European languages were spoken in Anatolia and Central Asia as far as
the Tarim Basin.
The inferred population genetic contributions of Turkic populations show a cline from a high point in the
East to the a low point in the West.[26] In Turkey, the Turkic contribution to the local population genetic mix
is about 30%.[27]
The origin of Turkic languages is disputed, both in connection with other language families and in time and
place. The lack of written records prior to the earliest Chinese accounts, and the fact that the early Turkic
peoples were nomadic pastoralists, and hence mobile, makes localizing and dating the earliest homeland of
the Turkic language difficult. Attempts to localize the proto-Turkic Urheimat are usually connected with the
early archaeological horizon of west and central Siberia and in the region south of it.[28] Further attempts
also include the Botai culture and the cultural horizon of the Kurgan cultures (see: Paleolithic Continuity
Theory).
Yeniseian
The Yeniseian language family has been recently tied by linguist Edward Vajda to the Native American
Na-Dene languages of North American (e.g. Navajo),[29] in a proposal named Dene-Yeniseian. Several
well-known linguists have reviewed the hypothesis as favorable, although several linguists, such as Lyle
Campbell, still reject it. This family of languages is sometimes described as Paleosiberian, a classification
that rests on a belief that it represents a stratum of Siberian populations that preceded the speakers of the
other modern languages of Siberia (mostly of the Indo-European and Altaic language families), possibly one
that dates back to the Paleolithic era when North America was initially populated. However, Paleosiberian
is usually considered a negatively defined collective term of convenience, not a genetic nor even areal
grouping, similarly to Papuan. There is some evidence that the speakers of the Yeniseian languages (such as
8 ofPrint
07-07-2014 18:50
the Ket language, which is the only surviving member of the moribund language family) migrated to their
current homeland along the Yenisei River in Central Siberia from an area south of the Altai Mountains in the
general vicinity of Mongolia or Northwest China within the last 2500 years or so (although there is no
evidence that the Yeniseian languages are linguistically related to the Altaic languages).[30][31][32] One
sentence of the language of the Jie, a Xiongnu tribe who founded the Later Zhao state in Chinese history,
appears consistent with being a Yeniseian language. Other linguists have suggested, with far less widespread
acceptance in the linguistics community, that the Yeniseian languages have a genetic relationship to one or
more of the Caucasian languages and the Sino-Tibetan languages (such as Chinese).[33][34]
Other groups
The only languages which are predominantly found in Europe, North Asia and South Asia and are not part of
the language families above are the Basque language spoken in Northern Spain and Southwestern France,
the three living language families of the Caucasus mountains (Northwest Caucasian, Northeast Caucasian
and South Caucasian, with the first two sometimes proposed as members of a single North Caucasian
language family), the Paleosiberian languages (the Yukaghir languages of Central Siberia (viewed by some
linguists as a divergent branch of the Uralic languages),[35][36] and the Chukotko-Kamchatkan languages of
Eastern Siberia, a grouping which sometimes includes the geographically adjacent Nivkh language, although
it is sometimes treated as a language isolate, and Yenesian), and a few South Asian linguistic isolates, such as
Burushaski, spoken mostly in isolated pockets of Northern Pakistan, and the two indigenous language
families of the Andamanese people (Great Andamanese and Ongan), and perhaps Nihali (spoken in West
Central India).[37] In each of these cases, the languages are spoken in an area that is geographically compact,
were spoken in that area at the time that they were first attested historically, and there is no definitive
evidence of an origin for the languages in question outside the area where they are spoken now.
Joseph Greenberg and Stephen Wurm have both noted lexical similarities between the Great Andamanese
language and the West Papuan languages. Wurm noted that the lexical similarities "are quite striking and
amount to virtual formal identity [...] in a number of instances." There is no agreement, even between these
two linguists, on a narrative that gave rise to these similarities.
Michael Fortescue, a specialist in EskimoAleut as well as in Chukotko-Kamchatkan, argues for a link
between Uralic, Yukaghir, Chukotko-Kamchatkan, and EskimoAleut in Language Relations Across Bering
Strait (1998). He calls this proposed grouping Uralo-Siberian.
There have been determined efforts by multiple linguists from at least the 19th century to link these
languages to other language families, particularly in the case of the Basque language, where numerous
connections to language families living and dead have been proposed by linguists. Frequently, efforts to look
for deeper linguistic origins of these languages will also attempt to integrate them into attested extinct
languages of Europe, such as the Etruscan language of Northern Italy, the Ligurian language of Italy, the
Lemnian language of the Aegean Island of Lemnos, the Minoan language aka Linear A of ancient Crete, the
Sumerian language once spoken in Mesopotamia (which is the oldest attested written language), the language
of the Indus River Valley civilization, the Elamite language of Iran, and the Hurrian language and Hattic
language of Anatolia. None of these efforts has achieved wide support among linguists, although some have
been viewed as sufficiently credible to receive serious consideration from multiple linguists.[37][38][39][40]
[41][42]
Language families predominantly found in Africa and Southwest

Asia
9 ofPrint
07-07-2014 18:50
Khoisan homeland
The Khoisan click languages of Africa do not form a
language family and so do not, as a family, have a
homeland. However, limited genetic evidence from some
Khoisan-language speakers in southern Africa suggest an
origin "along the African rift and a possible wider East
African range."[43] Thus, the Bushmen of the Kalahari
who occupy the largest geographic region where click
languages are spoken are viewed as a relict population
far removed from the place where click languages
probably originated. The Khoe languages, Tuu
languages, Kx'a languages, Hadza language and Sandawe
language (the latter two being Tanzanian language
isolates) are frequently grouped together in the catch all
Khoisan categorization, despite the lack of a definitive
recent common origin of these languages in a common
language family. However, for the Khoe-Kwadi group, a
more recent origin by immigration from East Africa
(around the beginning of the Christian Era) has been
suggested by Tom Gldemann, based on his observation
of similarities with Sandawe.
Map showing the distribution of the major language

families represented in Africa.
Afro-Asiatic homeland
The Afro-Asiatic languages include Arabic, Hebrew, Berber, and a variety of other languages now found
mostly in Northeast Africa, although the exact boundaries of this language family are disputed in the case of
a small number of languages spoken by small numbers of individuals in a few localized areas of Sudan and
East Africa.
The limited area of the Afro-Asiatic Sprachraum (prior to its expansion to new areas in the historic era) has
limited the potential areas where that family's Urheimat could be. Generally speaking, two proposals have
been developed: that Afro-Asiatic arose in a Semitic Urheimat in the Middle East aka Southwest Asia, or
that Afro-Asiatic languages arose in northeast Africa (generally, either between Darfur and Tibesti or in
Ethiopia and the other countries of the Horn of Africa). The African hypothesis is considered to be rather
more likely at the present time, because of the greater diversity of languages with more distant relationships
to each other there.
There have been serious linguistic proponents of almost every conceivable possible set of relationships of the
Afro-Asiatic language subfamilies to each other, although there is reasonably great consensus concerning the
subfamily classification of all but a few of the Afro-Asiatic languages. Some of this difficulty in resolving the
Afro-Asiatic family tree flows from the time depth of these languages. The Afro-Asiatic Egyptian language
of ancient Egypt (whose latest stage is known as Coptic) is one of the two oldest written language on Earth
(the other being the Sumerian language, a language isolate) dating in written form to approximately 3000
BCE, and the Semitic Akkadian language was also attested in writing from a very early date (ca. 2000 BCE).
A common Afro-Asiatic proto-language is necessarily older than these very old written languages which
belonged to language families that had already diverged from each other considerably by that point. There is
also no one genetic profile that is uniform among Afro-Asiatic language speakers that clearly unites them.
There are also competing theories on whether the Afro-Asiatic language family owes its expansion to the
Neolithic revolution that originated in an area that includes the range of the Afro-Asiatic language, or was
already widespread in the Upper Paleolithic era. Notably, the Afro-Asiatic language family is spoken in most
of the places that are leading candidates for the origins of the modern human species and most of
intermediate species between modern humans and the Great Apes in human evolution.
Print
10 of
34to PDF without this message by purchasing novaPDF (http://www.novapdf.com/)
07-07-2014 18:50
Semitic homeland
There has been speculation regarding the specific Semitic subfamily of Afro-Asiatic languages, again with
the Horn of Africa and Southwest Asiaspecifically the Levantbeing the most common proposals. The
large number of Semitic languages present in the Horn of Africa seems at first glance to support the
hypothesis that the Semitic homeland lies there. However, the Semitic languages in the Horn of Africa all
belong to the South Semitic subfamily and appear to all have relatively recent common origins in a single
Ethio-Semitic proto-language, while the East and Central Semitic languages are native solely to Asia. These
features, and the presence of certain common Semitic lexical items in all Ethio-Semitic languages referring to
items that arrived in Africa from the Levant at a time after Semitic languages were known to have been
spoken in the Levant, have lent weight to the Levantine proposal.
Hebrew is found in Europe due to the Jewish diaspora after the fall of the Second Temple in 70 CE that
marked the beginning of Rabbinic Judaism. It is relatively closely related to the Arabic language even within
the Semitic language family, being part of the same Central Semitic group.
The Maltese language, the only other Semitic language of Europe, is a derivative of the Arabic language as it
was spoken in Sicily starting sometime after the rise of the Islamic empire in North Africa.
Nilo-Saharan homeland
Genetic studies of Nilo-Saharan-speaking populations are in general agreement with archaeological evidence
and linguistic studies that argue for a Nilo-Saharan homeland in eastern Sudan before 6000 BCE, with
subsequent migration events northward to the eastern Sahara, westward to the Chad Basin, and
southeastward into Kenya and Tanzania.[44]
Linguist Roger Blench has suggested that the Nilo-Saharan languages and the NigerCongo languages may
be branches of the same macrolanguage family.[45][46] Earlier proposals along this line were made by
linguist Edgar Gregersen in 1972.[47] These proposals have not reached a linguistic consensus, however, and
this connection presupposes that all of the Nilo-Saharan languages are actually related in a single family,
which has not been definitively established.
Razib Khan, based on analysis of the autosomal genetics of the Tutsi ethnic group of Africa, suggests that
"the Tutsi were in all likelihood once a Nilotic speaking population, who switched to the language of the
Bantus amongst whom they settled."[48][49]
NigerCongo homeland
The homeland of the NigerCongo languages, which has as its subfamily the BenueCongo languages, which
in turn includes the Bantu languages, is not known in time or place, beyond the fact that it probably
originated in or near the area where these languages were spoken prior to Bantu expansion (i.e. West Africa
or Central Africa) and probably predated the Bantu expansion of ca. 3000 BCE by many thousands of
years.[50] Its expansion may have been associated with the expansion of Sahel agriculture in the African
Neolithic period.[50]
According to linguist Roger Blench, as of 2004, all specialists in NigerCongo languages believe the
languages to have a common origin, rather than merely constituting a typological classification, for reasons
including their shared noun-class system, their shared verbal extensions and their shared basic lexicon.
[51][52]
Similar classifications have been made ever since Diedrich Westermann in 1922.[53] Joseph
Greenberg continued that tradition making it the starting point for modern linguistic classification in Africa,
with some of his most notable publications going to press starting in the 1960s.[54] But, there has been active
debate for many decades over the appropriate subclassifications of the languages in that language family,
11 ofPrint
07-07-2014 18:50
which is a key tool used in localizing a language's place of origin.[51] No definitive "Proto-NigerCongo"
lexicon or grammar has been developed for the language family as a whole.
An important unresolved issue in determining the time and place where the NigerCongo languages
originated and their range prior to recorded history is this language family's relationship to the Kordofanian
languages now spoken in the Nuba mountains of Sudan, which is not contiguous with the remainder of the
NigerCongo language speaking region and is at the northeasternmost extent of the current NigerCongo
linguistic region. The current prevailing linguistic view is that Kordofanian languages are part of the
NigerCongo language family, and that among the many languages still surviving in that region these may be
the oldest.[55] The evidence is insufficient to determine if this outlier group of NigerCongo language
speakers represent a prehistoric range of a NigerCongo linguistic region that has since contracted as other
languages have intruded, or if instead, this represents a group of NigerCongo language speakers who
migrated to the area at some point in prehistory where they were an isolated linguistic community from the
beginning.
The prehistoric range for the NigerCongo languages has implications, not just for the history of the
NigerCongo languages, but for the origins of the Afro-Asiatic languages and Nilo-Saharan languages whose
homelands have been hypothesized by some to overlap with the NigerCongo linguistic range prior to
recorded history. If the consensus view regarding the origins of the Nilo-Saharan languages which came to
East Africa is adopted, and a North African or Southwest Asian origin for Afro-Asiatic languages is assumed,
the linguistic affiliation of East Africa prior to the arrival of Nilo-Saharan and Afro-Asiatic languages is left
open. The overlap between the potential areas of origin for these languages in East Africa is particularly
notable because includes the regions from which the Proto-Eurasians who brought anatomically modern
humans Out of Africa, and presumably their original proto-language or languages originated.
However, there is more agreement regarding the place of origin of the BenueCongo subfamily of languages,
which is the largest subfamily of the group, and the place of origin of the Bantu languages and the time at
which it started to expand is known with great specificity.
The classification of the relatively divergent family of Ubangian languages which are centered in the Central
African Republic, as part of the NigerCongo language family where Greenberg classified them in 1963 and
subsequently scholars concurred,[56] was called into question, by linguist Gerrit Dimmendaal in a 2008
article.[57]
Benue-Congo homeland
Roger Blench, relying particularly on prior work by Professor
Kay Williamson of the University of Port Harcourt, and the
linguist P. De Wolf, who each took the same position, has argued
that a BenueCongo linguistic subfamily of the NigerCongo
language family, which includes the Bantu languages and other
related languages and would be the largest branch of Niger
Congo, is an empirically supported grouping which probably
originated at the confluence of the Benue and Congo Rivers in
Central Nigeria.[51][58][59][60][61][62] These estimates of the
place of origin of the Benue-Congo language family do not fix a
date for the start of that expansion other than that it must have
been sufficiently prior to the Bantu expansion to allow for the
diversification of the languages within this language family that
includes Bantu.
The Benue-Congo homeland
Bantu homeland
12 ofPrint
07-07-2014 18:50
There is a widespread consensus among linguistic scholars that Bantu languages of the NigerCongo family
have a homeland near the coastal boundary of Nigeria and Cameroon, prior to a rapid expansion from that
homeland starting about 3000 BCE.[44][50][63][64][65][66][67]
Linguisic, archeological and genetic evidence also indicates that this expansion included "independent waves
of migration of western African and East African Bantu-speakers into southern Africa occurred."[44] In
some places, Bantu language, genetic evidence suggests that Bantu language expansion was largely a result
of substantial population replacement.[68] In other places, Bantu language expansion, like many other
languages, has been documented with population genetic evidence to have occurred by means other than
complete or predominant population replacement (e.g. via language shift and admixture of incoming and
existing populations). For example, one study found this to be the case in Bantu language speakers who are
African Pygmies or are in Mozambique,[68] while another population genetic study found this to be the case
in the Bantu language speaking Lemba of Zimbabwe.[69] Where Bantu was adopted via language shift of
existing populations, prior African languages were spoken, probably from African language families that are
now lost, except as substrate influences of local Bantu languages (such as click sounds in local Bantu
languages).
Malagasy language homeland

The Malagasy language of Madagascar is not related to nearby African languages, instead being the
westernmost member of the Malayo-Polynesian branch of the Austronesian language family. The similarity
between Malagasy and Malay and Javanese was noted as long ago as 1708 by the Dutch scholar Adriaan van
Reeland.[70] Malagasy is related to the Malayo-Polynesian languages of Indonesia, Malaysia, and the
Philippines, and more closely with the Southeast Barito group of languages spoken in Borneo except for its
Polynesian morphophonemics.[71] Malagasy shares much of its basic vocabulary with the Ma'anyan
language, a language from the region of the Barito River in southern Borneo. This indicates that Madagascar
was first settled by Austronesian people from the Malay Archipelago, who had passed through Borneo. This
happened approximately 0 CE to 500 CE, prior to which the island of Madagascar lacked human
inhabitants.[50] Later, the original Austronesian settlers must have mixed with Bantus and Arabs, amongst
others.[72] The Malagasy language also includes some borrowings from Arabic, and Bantu languages
(notably Swahili). Limited sample size whole genome analysis of Malagasy individuals show that the African
component of the Malagasy genome is most similar to modern Bantu-speaking populations in the eastern
African Great Lakes region.[73]
Language families predominantly found in East Asia, Southeast Asia

and Oceania
Sino-Tibetan homeland
13 ofPrint
07-07-2014 18:50
According to the Sino-Tibetan Etymological Dictionary and

Thesaurus project of the University of California at
Berkeley, the Proto-Sino-Tibetan (PST) homeland may
have been "where the great rivers of East and Southeast
Asia (including the Yellow, Yangtze, Mekong, Brahmaputra,
Salween, and Irrawaddy) have their source. The time of
hypothetical ST unity, when the Proto-Han (= ProtoChinese) and Proto-Tibeto-Burman (PTB) peoples formed a
relatively undifferentiated linguistic community, must have
been at least as remote as the Proto-Indo-European period,
perhaps around 4000 B.C."[74]
Some scholars place the Tibeto-Burman homeland in the
area encompassing western Sichuan, northern Yunnan and
eastern Tibet.[75]
The Sino-Tibetan languages
Population genetic evidence, favors an origin for Proto-Sino-Tibetan languages in the upper and middle
Yellow River basin, with part of that source population branching off to settle in the Himalayas, with the split
of the population that would provide the genesis of the Chinese language from the population that would
provide the genesis of the larger Sino-Tibetan language family in the East Asian Neolithic era:[76]
"[T]he closest relatives of the Tibetans are the Yi people, who live in the Hengduan Mountains
and were originally formed through fusion with natives along their migration routes into the
mountains. The Tibetan and Yi languages belong to the Tibeto-Bruman language group and their
ancestries can be traced back to an ancient tribe, the Di-Qiang . . . After the ancestors of
Sino-Tibetans reached the upper and middle Yellow River basin, they divided into two
subgroups: Proto-Tibeto-Burman and Proto-Chinese. . . . The ancestral component which was
dominant in Tibetan and Yi arose from the Proto-Tibeto-Burman subgroup, which marched on
to south-west China and later, through one of its branches, became the ancestor of modern
Tibetans. Proto-Tibeto-Burmans also spread over the Hengduan Mountains where the Yi have
lived for hundreds of generations. Taking the optimal living condition and the easiest migration
route into account, we favor the single-route hypothesis; it is more likely that their migration
into the Tibetan Plateau through the Hengduan Mountain valleys occurred after Tibetan
ancestors separated from the other Proto-Tibeto-Burman groups and diverged to form the
modern Tibetan population."
One of the earliest Neolithic cultures of China in the upper to middle Yellow River basin was the Peiligang
culture of 7000 BCE to 5000 BCE, so the population genetic reference in the quoted material is to a date on
or after this time period. The Neolithic era concluded in the Yellow River around 1500 BCE. This is not
inconsistent with the linguistically based estimate from the Sino-Tibetan Etymological Dictionary and
Thesaurus project. By the early and middle Zhou Dynasty (1122 BCE256 BCE), the language spoken in the
Zhou court had become the standardized dialect for that kingdom.[77]
In contrast, four of the other main language families of East Asia and Southeast Asia outside the
Sino-Tibetan language family, Austroasiatic, Austronesian, HmongMien and TaiKadai, are generally
believed to have at origins at some stage of their development in Southern China.
Austroasiatic homeland
Print
14 of
07-07-2014 18:50
The homeland of the Austroasiatic languages (e.g.

Vietnamese, Cambodian) which are found from
Southeast Asia to India is hypothesized to be located
"the hills of southern Yunnan in China," between 4000
BCE and 2000 BCE,[78] with influences from Aryan and
Dravidian languages at the Western edge of its expanse
in India, and influence from Chinese at the Eastern edge
of the regions where it is found. The disjoint distribution
of Austroasiatic languages suggest that they were once
spoken in most of the areas where the TaiKadai
languages are now dominant.
However, Paul Sidwell has recently advocated a
homeland in Southeast Asia instead,[79] preferring a late
date of dispersal of about 2000 BCE.[80]
There is a strong correlation between the population
genetic distribution Y-Chromosomal haplogroup
O2a1-M95 and the distribution of Austroasiatic language
speakers.[81]
Austroasiatic languages
HmongMien homeland
The most likely homeland of the HmongMien languages (aka MiaoYao languages) is in Southern China
between the Yangtze and Mekong rivers, but speakers of these languages may have migrated from Central
China either as part of the Han Chinese expansion or as a result of exile from an original homeland by Han
Chinese.[82] Migration of people speaking these languages from South China to Southeast Asia took place
ca. 1600-1700 CE. Ancient DNA evidence suggests that the ancestors of the speakers of the HmongMien
languages were a population genetically distinct from that of the TaiKadai and Austronesian language
source populations at a location on the Yangtze River.[83] Recent Y-DNA phylogeny evidence supports the
proposition that people who speak the Hmong-Mien languages are descended from the population that now
speaks Austroasiatic Mon-Khmer languages.[84]
Austronesian homeland
The homeland of the Austronesian languages is Taiwan.
On this island the deepest divisions in Austronesian are
found, among the families of the native Formosan
languages. According to Blust (1999), the Formosan
languages form nine of the ten primary branches of the
Austronesian language family. Comrie (2001:28) noted
this when he wrote:
... the internal diversity among the... Formosan
languages... is greater than that in all the rest of
Austronesian put together, so there is a major
The Austronesian Expansion
genetic split within Austronesian between
Formosan and the rest... Indeed, the genetic
diversity within Formosan is so great that it may well consist of several primary branches of the
overall Austronesian family.
Archaeological evidence (e.g., Bellwood 1997) suggests that speakers of pre-Proto-Austronesian spread
Print
15 of
07-07-2014 18:50
from the South Chinese mainland to Taiwan at some time around 6000 BCE. Evidence from historical
linguistics suggests that it is from this island that seafaring peoples migrated, perhaps in distinct waves
separated by millennia, to the entire region encompassed by the Austronesian languages (Diamond 2000). It
is believed that this migration began around 4000 BCE (Blust 1999). However, evidence from historical
linguistics cannot bridge the gap between those two periods.
It is possible that the ancient Taiwan aborigines were related to the ancient Minyue, derived in ancient times
from the southeast coast of Mainland China, as suggested by linguists Li Jen-Kuei and Robert Blust. It is
suggested that in the southeast coastal regions of China, there were many sea nomads during the Neolithic
era and they may have spoken ancestral Austronesian languages, and were skilled seafarers.
The specific origins of most far flung member of this language family, the Malagasy language of Madagascar
off the coast of Africa, are described above in the part of this article concerning African languages.
The Austro-Tai hypothesis suggests a common origin for the Austronesian languages and the TaiKadai
languages whose hypothesized place of origin is geographically close to Taiwan.
TaiKadai homeland
Many scholars have addressed the question of the origins
of the TaiKadai languages.[85][86][87][88][89]
There is a consensus that the TaiKadai languages have
their origins in Southern China or on major nearby
islands (such as Taiwan or Hainan).
The leading hypothesis is that the likely homeland of
proto-TaiKadai was coastal Fujian or Guangdong as
part of the neolithic Longshan culture (of 3000 BCE
2000 BCE). The spread of the TaiKadai peoples may
have been aided by agriculture, but any who remained
near the coast were eventually absorbed by the Chinese.
Weera Ostapirat is one academic who articulates this
position.[90]
Laurent Sagart, on the other hand, holds that TaiKadai
is a branch of Austronesian which migrated back to the
mainland from northeastern Formosa (i.e. Taiwan) long
after Formosa was settled, but probably before the
expansion of Malayo-Polynesian out of Formosa.
The TaiKadai languages today
[91][92][93]
The language was then largely relexified from
what he believes may have been an Austroasiatic
language. Sagart suggests that Austro-Tai is ultimately related to the Sino-Tibetan languages and has its origin
in the Neolithic communities of the coastal regions of prehistoric North China or East China.
Ostapirat, by contrast, sees connections with the Austroasiatic languages (in Austric), as has Benedict.
[94][95][96]
Reid notes that the two approaches are not incompatible, if Austric is valid and can be connected
to Sino-Tibetan.[97]
Robert Blust (1999) suggests that proto-TaiKadai speakers originated in the northern Philippines and
migrated from there to Hainan (hence the diversity of TaiKadai languages on that island), and were
radically restructured following contact with HmongMien and Sinitic. However, Ostapirat maintains that
TaiKadai could not descend from Malayo-Polynesian in the Philippines, and likely not from the languages
Print
16 of
07-07-2014 18:50
of eastern Formosa either. His evidence is in the TaiKadai sound correspondences, which reflect
Austronesian distinctions that were lost in Malayo-Polynesian and even Eastern Formosan.
Genetic evidence coroborates evidence from Kadai speaking people's oral traditions that puts a Kadai
homeland on Hainan.[98] Ancient DNA evidence also shows a connection between speakers of TaiKadai
speaking populations and Austronesian language speaking populations,[83] and a genetically distinct
population at a different location on the Yangtze River as a possible source of HmongMien languages.[83]
Mongolic homeland
Some historians suggest that the people assiociated with the Slab Grave Culture (1100 BC-300 BC) were the
direct ancestors of the Xiongnu and Mongols.[99] Slab Grave cultural monuments are found in Mongolia,
Inner Mongolia, Northwest China (Xinjiang region, Qilian Mountains etc.), Northeast China, Lesser Khingan
Mountains and southern Siberia. The identity of the ethnic core of Xiongnu has been a subject of varied
hypotheses and some scholars insisted on a Mongolic origin.[100] Xiongnu Empire (209-BC93 AD)
became a dominant power on the steppes of Central Asia. They were active in regions of what is now
southern Siberia, Mongolia, Inner Mongolia, Gansu and Xinjiang Province. According to some scientists
view, the Mongols expanded into present day Mongolia sometime after the demise of the Karasuk culture
(1500-300 BC), an Indo-European and, according to ancient DNA, genetically Western Eurasian
population.[101] Genghis Khan, starting around 1206 CE, waged a series of military campaigns that, together
with campaigns by his successors, stretched from present-day Poland in the west to Korea in the east and
from Siberia in the north to the Gulf of Oman and Vietnam in the south, after which the empire ultimately
collapsed with little long lasting linguistic impact outside the core Mongolian area.[102]
Japanese and Korean language homelands

Today, there is one Korean language spoken in Korea, and a small family of related languages called Japonic
spoken in Japan. There is also an Ainu language spoken by an ethnic minority in Northern Japan.
There were multiple languages spoken in Manchuria and the Korean Peninsula prior to Korea's unification,
and there is dispute over which of those languages gave rise to modern Korean sometime in the first
millennium CE, and what relationship that proto-language may have had to the proposed family of Altaic
languages. The core three populations in the Altaic classification show autosomal population genetic
commonalities. These core three populations also show lexical affinities in their languages.[103]
There is also dispute over the extent, if any, to which one of those multiple languages of the Korean
peninsula prior to its unification gave rise to the Japanese language, and if so, which of those languages was
the language of the Yayoi part of the founding group of modern Japan. The Yayoi may also have had
linguistic influences from China. Japanese links to Altaic languages, if they exist, could have arisen via an
Altaic source for a Korean peninsula language spoken by the Yayoi, and/or via Altaic influences on the Ainu
languages via contacts between the Ainu people and Siberia.
The Ainu language or another extinct language of the indigenous people of Japan called the Jmon may have
also been a formative element in the Japanese language as the Yayoi people and the Jmon people merged
into a common Japanese ethnicity around 2300 years ago.
Both the Koreans and the Japanese make use of Chinese ideograms in their written language, whose Chinese
origins are not disputed. However, neither of these spoken languages is closely related to the spoken Chinese
language, and need not be because ideograms do not code phonetic versions of the ideas that they describe.
Korean
17 ofPrint
07-07-2014 18:50
The Korean language is spoken in Korea and among emigrants from

Korea. Conservative historical linguists tend to classify the Korean
language as a language isolate, although other suggest a relationship
to Altaic languages or to Japonic languages.
Old Korean is attested in Chinese histories, in the Three Kingdoms
period of Korea (ca. 0 to 900 CE), when the Silla Kingdom (in
Eastern Korea), Baekje Kingdom (in Southwestern Korea), and
Goguryeo Kingdom (in Northern Korea) were simultaneously present
on the Korean peninsula, although Korean was not a literary
language until later; the hangul script of Korean was invented in the
15th century CE (the earlier Idu script dates to the 6th century CE).
There was a group of similar languages called the Buyeo languages in
the northern Korean Peninsula and southern Manchuria and possibly
Japan, which included, according to Chinese records, the languages
of Buyeo, Goguryeo, Baekje, Dongye, Okjeo, and possibly
Korea in 576 CE.
Gojoseon, but was different from ancient Manchu languages like
Mohe language. Gojoseon was a kingdom in Northern Korea that is
said by tradition to have been founded in 2333 BC (archaeological evidence and Chinese histories support a
cultural civilization from around 1500 BCE and a kingdom fused from a federation of smaller states around
the 7th century BCE), that was conquered by Han Dynasty China in 108 BC, and re-emereged from Chinese
rule as the Kingdom Buyeo. The Three Kingdoms era kingdoms of Goguryeo and Baekje were successors to
the Kingdom of Buyeo. Dongye was a vassal state of Goguryeo in Northeast Korea founded in the
3rd-century BCE that was eventually absorbed by Goguryeo around the 5th century CE. Okjeo was a minor
state in Northern Korea to the North of Dongye that was a subordinate unit of Gojoseon from the 3rd
century BCE to 108 BCE, then came under Han rule, and then was a subordinate state of Goguryeo. None
of these Buyeo language family kingdoms ever included the Kingdom of Silla, which was just a small
kingdom on the Southern coast of Korea until the Three Kingdoms period during which it expanded and
conquered the other two kingdoms.
Linguists including Christopher Beckwith argue for Japanese as a descendant of Goguryeo, and for Korean
as a descendant of the Silla language, based on lexical similarities between Goguryeo and Japanese, and
based upon Silla's ultimate triumph in the quest for political control of Korea. Other linguistists, including
Kim Banghan, Alexander Vovin, and J. Marshall Unger argue that Japanese is related to the pre-Goguryeo
language of the central and southern part of Korean peninsula, including what would become the Kingdom
of Silla, and that Old Korean is Goguryeo with a pre-Goguryeo Japonic substrate, in part, because
Japanese-like toponyms found in the historical homeland of Silla were also distributed in southern part of
Korean peninsula, and are not found in the northern part of Korean peninsula or south-western
Manchuria.[104] None of the extinct languages is attested in writing well enough to reach definitive
conclusions resolving the debate.
Japanese and Ainu languages
Japanese language family languages are spoken in Japan and among emigrants from Japan and is attested in
Japanese language writing from the 8th century CE, and in imperfect Chinese transcriptions from the late 5th
century CE. Conservative historical linguists tend to classify a small number of Japanese languages as a
language family of their own. The Ainu languages are a barely surviving family of closely related languages
or dialects that were spoken by indigenous populations on the island of Hokkaid in what is now northern
Japan as well as on the island of Sakhalin and the Kuril Archipelago in what is now the Russian Far East at
the time of the oldest extant historical records concerning those islands.
There are similarities between the Japanese language and the Korean language in lexicon and grammatical
18 ofPrint
07-07-2014 18:50
features, but there is dispute over whether these denote a common origin, or mere linguistic borrowing due to
a sprachbund of neighboring languages that are adjacent to each other. Samuel E. Martin, Roy Andrew
Miller, and Sergei Starostin are linguists who have argued that they have common origins.[105][106]
[107][108][109]
In contrast, Alexander Vovin has argued for a regional borrowing model to explain the
linguistic similarities.[110]
One hypothesis proposes that Japanese is a relative of the extinct languages spoken by the Buyeo-Goguryeo
cultures of Korea, southern Manchuria, and Liaodong of which the best attested is the extinct language
Goguryeo.[111][112][113] This proposal is attributed to Shinmura Izuru, who proposed it in 1916. Modern
Korean, in contrast, according to proponents of this hypothesis, appears to have stronger connections the
Silla language, spoken in the ancient kingdom of Silla (57 BC AD 935), one of the Three Kingdoms of
Korea, whose similarity to the Goguryeo language is not clearly established.
The earliest Chinese historical records concerning the "Wa" in Japan indicate that they were fractured into
many warring states. But, modern Japanese dialects show a common origin, rather than a "bushy" one. So, it
is possible that there were many Yayoi dialects in the period before Old Japanese emerged, of which the
dialect of the warring states that ended up prevailing politically as the Japanese state was unified superseded
other early Yayoi languages or dialects.[114]
After a new wave of immigration, probably from the Korean Peninsula some 2,300 years ago, of the Yayoi
people, the Jmon were pushed into northern Japan. Genetic data suggest that modern Japanese are
descended from both the Yayoi and the Jmon. Tradition, as documented by the Nihon Shoki, a legendary
account of Japan's history, puts the date of the Yayoi arrival in Japan at 660 BCE. Chinese historical records
mention the existence of the Yayoi (called "Wa") starting in 57 BCE. The existing Japanese language has its
origins at approximately this point in time, if not earlier (to the extent that Japanese derives primarily from
either the language of the Bronze Age Yayoi people, as it existed prior to their arrival in Japan, or derives
primarily from a language of the Jmon at that point of time, rather than being a creole of some sort).
Skeletal remains suggests that the two cultures had fused into a group with a homogeneous physical
appearance in Southern Japan by 250 CE.[114] It is possible that the Japanese language has roots related to
the Ainu language, the historical language of the Yayoi, whatever that may have been, or could have been a
creole of both. It is also possible the Japanese has roots in a language spoken in Southern Japan that is lost
and now unknown.[114]
The Ainu people are genetic descendants of the Jmon, with some
contribution from the Okhotsk people.[115] The Ainu languages that
are now spoken by Ainu minorities in Hokkaid; and were formerly
spoken in southern and central Sakhalin, and the Kuril Islands (an
area also known as Ezo), and perhaps northern Honsh island by the
Emishi people (until approximately 1000 CE), are associated with the
Location of Ezo
founding Jmon people of Japan from than 14,000 years ago or
earlier, and the Satsumon culture of Hokkaid, although the Ainu
also had contact with the Paleo-Siberian Okhotsk culture whose modern descendants include the Nivkh
people (whose original homeland was mostly occupied by the Tungusic people), which could have
linguistically influenced the Ainu language.[116] Thus, as a result of this important outside cultural influence,
it is impossible to know with certainty how similar the language of the original language of the Jmon people
was to that spoken by the Ainu people today. Some linguists have suggested other language family
connections for the Ainu language: Shafer has suggested a distant connection to the Austroasiatic
languages.[117] Vovin, had viewed that suggestion as merely preliminary.[118] Japanese linguist Shichir
Murayama tried to link Ainu to the Austronesian languages, which include the languages of the Philippines,
Taiwan, and Indonesia through both vocabulary and cultural comparisons. There is no consensus, however,
that the Ainu languages have sources in any other known language, and the unique population genetics of
Print
19 of
07-07-2014 18:50
the Ainu people support the hypothesis that they were largely isolated from the rest of the world for many
thousands of years.
The Yayoi people had strong physical, genetic and cultural similarities to the Chinese during the Han
Dynasty (202 BCE-8) in the Jiangsu province on China's Eastern Coast.[119] The Yayoi also have strong
cultural similarities to the Koreans of that time period.[114][120]
Some linguists, such as Turchin,[103] see a connection between
Japanese and Korean and an Altaic language family or similar larger
grouping of languages, with those speakers coming from an area
North of Korea, based in part upon similarities in lexical roots. The
statistical method used by Turchin, however, would not discriminate
between Jmon and Yayoi sources for any Altaic linguistic affinities.
Turchin's analysis also did not look at the various proposed ancient
predecessors of the Korean language in Korea or the relationship of
those languages to any of the proto-Altaic languages, despite the fact
that the hypothesis would require one of those ancient Korean
peninsular languages to be intermediate between Japanese and one of
Location of Ryukyu Islands
the proto-Altaic languages. Old Japanese when first attested had
eight vowels, rather than the current five (which were lost within a
century of the oldest preserved writings) which was close to the vowel system seen in Uralic and Altaic
languages.[121] Old Japanese also had more grammatical similarity to Altaic languages than modern
Japanese.
These classifications of the origins of Japanese language origins ignore significant borrowing from other
languages in recent times. Current estimates are that "wago" (i.e. words attributable to the original Yayoi
language) make up 33.8% of the Japanese lexicon, that "kango" (i.e. words with roots borrowed from
Chinese since the 5th century CE) make up 49.1% of Japanese words (and in addition, the Chinese
ideograms used in the Japanese written language), that foreign words called gairaigo make up 8.8% of
Japanese words, and that 8.3% of Japanese words are konshugo that draw upon multiple languages.[122] This
account attributes only a small number of words in modern Japanese to Ainu roots.
The six Ryukyuan languages spoken in the islands to the South of Japan, are descended from Japanese but
are not mutually intelligble with Japanese with which they share about 72% of their words (or each other)
and started to diverge from Japanese around the 7th century CE. these islands were united in a Ryukyuan
kingdom from 1429 CE (prior to that there were multiple divided kingdoms which were tributary states of
China after 1372 CE); the kingdom was a tributary state of China until 1609 when it became a vassal state of
Japan, until it was annexed by Japan in 1879. These languages were then suppressed and while they have
about a million native speakers, there are relatively few native speakers under the age of twenty. They are
effectively minority languages in their own countries at this point.
Other groups
The only language isolates or language families predominantly spoken in Southeast Asia, East Asia and
Oceania that do not belong to one of the language families above are the indigenous languages of Melanesia
(which number more than eight hundred or more in perhaps sixty language families), which are described
with a geographic term that does not presume a genetic relationship between them as the Papuan languages,
and the Australian aboriginal languages (of which there are about one hundred and fifty remaining in about
ten language families, all of which, except the languages of the PamaNyungan languages are largely
confined to the central Northern coast of Australia). No linguists have found a language family connection
between indigenous Papuan and Australian aboriginal languages and those of Asia, Africa, the Americas or
any other part of the world. Indeed, no linguistic connection has been established between the indigenous
Print
20 of
07-07-2014 18:50
languages of Melanesia and the indigenous languages of the Aboriginal Australians.[123] This is consistent
with the mainstream view, supported by population genetics and archaeology, that Papua New Guinea and
Australia, as well as some of the islands neighboring Papua New Guinea, were first inhabited by hominins
(humans or otherwise) at least 40,000 years ago in migrations that were either separate or swiftly segregated,
and that many of these populations have had only limited contact with outside populations until the modern
era. While there are plausible reasons to infer that the Melanesian languages and the aboriginal Australian
languages, respectively, have common origins in a small founding population with a single language, the
linguists have not been able to marshal lexical, phonetic and grammatical evidence from these languages in
their current form to support these inferences.
Languages spoken predominantly in North and South America

Na-Dene
Since 2008, linguist Edward Vajda has been advocating, and
attempting to demonstrate, a genetic link between the Na-Dene
languages of North America and the Yeniseian languages of central
Siberia, suggesting a homeland in Siberia or a back migration of
Na-Dene speakers from Beringia. Na-Dene languages are spoken by
Native Alaskans and some people from the First Nations of Western
Canada, in the Pacific Northwest, and also includes the Southern
Athabaskan languages spoken in the American Southwest (e. g., the
languages Apache and Navajo). The proposal, which does not
originate with Vajda but is considerably older, is not generally
accepted among linguists.
Eskimo-Aleut
Area of the Na-Dene languages
The EskimoAleut languages are spoken by native peoples of the Arctic regions of Alaska and Canada and
Greenland, generally to the North of Na-Dene linguistic areas (shown on the map on the left).
Current ancient and modern DNA scholarship and archaeology
supports a three-layer paradigm in which first the Saqqaq (Arctic
Paleo-Eskimos) which was present 2000 BCE, then the Dorset
(second wave Arctic Paleo-Eskimos), and finally the Thule (protoInuit) from ca. 500 CE 1000 CE, successively sweep Arctic North
America while having little genetic impact on Native American
populations further South, that presumably have origins that date
back to the initial colonization of the Americas by modern humans
from Asia (who are the first hominins to live there), and ancient DNA
shows genetic continuity from the Thule to modern Inuit (whose
genetics are remarkably homogeneous), dominated by the A2a, A2b,
and D3 mtDNA haplotypes, while "Haplotype D2 (3%), found among
Eskimo-Aleut languages
modern Aleut and Siberian Eskimos, was identified at a low
frequency in the modern samples but not the ancient. This haplotype
was recently identified in an ancient Paleo-Eskimo Saqqaq individual from western Greenland. . . . Whole
genomic sequencing of the 4,000 year old PaleoEskimo, "Inuk," indicated that the Saqqaq sequences
clustered with the Chukchi and Koryaks of Siberia-suggesting an earlier migration from Siberia along the
northern slope of Alaska to Greenland."[124] Evidence such as bronze artifacts produced in East Asia from
ca. 1000 CE, further supports a proto-Eskimo-Aleut arrival in the polar regions of North America ca. 500 CE
1000 CE.[125]
21 ofPrint
07-07-2014 18:50
The proto-Eskimo-Aleut migration to North America, associated with

the Thule expansion in North America ca. 500 CE, took place much
more recently than the initial human population of North America,
which took place more than 14,000 years ago. Also, the modern Inuit
populations are genetically distinct from other indigenous populations
of the Americas. Thus, evidence from genetics and archaeology
strongly supports an East Asian origin for Eskimo-Aleut languages
sometime in the last 1500 years that is distinct from most other
indigenous languages of the Americas. But there is no linguistic
consensus on any particular languages of East Asia with which this
family of North American languages is associated.[126] It is entirely
possible that Eastern Siberian languages most closely ancestral to
Eskimo-Aleut are extinct. Many indigenous languages and cultures of
this region have died in the face of expanded Russian cultural and
national influence starting in the 18th century.
Wakashan languages
Michael Fortescue in 1998 proposed a group of Uralo-Siberian languages, in which Uralic languages like
Finnish were related to Eskimo-Aleut languages supported by lexical correspondences and grammatical
similarities, expanding upon a proposal of Morris Swadesh in 1962 that itself reiterates similarities that have
been noted since at least 1746.[127] Fortescue argues that the Uralo-Siberian proto-language (or a complex of
related proto-languages) may have been spoken by Mesolithic hunting and fishing people in south-central
Siberia (roughly, from the upper Yenisei river to Lake Baikal) between 8000 and 6000 BC, and that the
proto-languages of the derived families may have been carried northward out of this homeland in several
successive waves down to about 4000 BC, leaving the Samoyedic branch of Uralic in occupation of the
Urheimat thereafter.
A 2005 proposal by Holst, also reiterating a proposal of Swadesh from 1962, suggests that the Wakashan
languages (map on right) spoken in British Columbia around and on Vancouver Island, are part of the same
language family as the Eskimo-Aleut languages.[128] This proposal, if accurate, would suggest that Na-Dene
languages may have arrived in North America after (although not long after) Eskimo-Aleut languages.
Phonologically, the EskimoAleut languages resemble other languages of northern North America and far
eastern Siberia.
Uto-Aztecan
Some authorities on the history of the Uto-Aztecan language group
place its homeland in the border region between the USA and
Mexico, namely the upland regions of Arizona and New Mexico and
the adjacent areas of the Mexican states of Sonora and Chihuaua,
shown on the map (below left) roughly corresponding to the Sonoran
Desert. The proto-language would have been spoken by foragers,
about 5,000 years ago. Hill (2001) proposes instead a homeland
further south, making the assumed speakers of Proto-Uto-Aztecan
maize cultivators in Mesoamerica, who were gradually pushed north,
bringing maize cultivation with them, during the period of roughly
4,500 to 3,000 years ago, the geographic diffusion of speakers
corresponding to the breakup of linguistic unity.[129]
Tupian
Uto-Axtecan languages
Print
22 of
07-07-2014 18:50
Tupi_languages Are predominantly spoken in western South

America, Specially in Brazil and Paraguay with branches in
neighboring countries. They are believed by some scholars to be
related to Carib and J languages. The Tupian was once spoken by
the Powerfull Tupian Nations of the Coast encountered by the
Europeans. And still spoken By the tribes of Xingu and the Guarani
to small nomadic peoples uncontacted in the Amazon. The language
was adapted and used by Bandeirantes explorers and raiders from
So Paulo who explored the then unknown interior of Brazil in
search of gold and slaves. and transformed it in dialects who later
become the Nhngatu or Lingua Geral and made it the most widelly
spoken language in Brazil until the Marquis of Pombal impose the
Tupi languages
use of Portuguese in the Colony Rodrigues (2007) considers the
Proto-Tupian homeland to be somewhere between the Guapor and
Aripuan rivers, in the Madeira River basin.[2] Much of this area corresponds to the modern-day state of
Rondnia, Brazil. 5 of the 10 Tupian branches are found in this area, as well as some TupiGuarani
languages (especially Kawahb), making it the probable urheimat of these languages and maybe of its
speaking peoples. Rodrigues believes the Proto-Tupian language dates back to around 5,000 B.P.
Other groups
Other than Dene-Yeniseian, and a possible connection between the Eskimo-Aleut language family and the
Uralic language family, no proposals of genetic relations between languages of North or South America and
languages of Eurasia, Africa, or other parts of the world, have been backed by credible evidence. There is
not, for example, any indication that the Vikings who had a brief presence in North America around 1000
CE left any linguistic trace.
Population genetic evidence suggests that the non-circumpolar indigenous peoples of the Americas have
origins in a small common founder population in the Upper Paleolithic era that arrived via a Berginian land
bridge from Asia.[130][131][132][133] This population genetic data point suggests the possibility that all
indigenous Native American languages of non-circumpolar indigenous Americans (i.e. neither Inuit-Aleut
nor Na-Dene) have genetic origins in a single language of the founding population of the Americas, and
hence, as controversially proposed by Greenberg, that they all ultimately belong to the same linguistic
superfamily, which Greenberg called Amerind.[134] But, there is not clear evidence of this from efforts to
use traditional comparative linguistic methods to classify indigenous Native American languages. The
process of identifying linguistic origins with traditional linguistic methods begins with the process of
classifying languages into families.
In general, more progress has been made in identify language family relationships in North America, where
the just under three hundred attested languages are grouped into twenty-nine language families and
twenty-seven language isolates (some of which are simply incapable of being classified because they are
extinct and were not sufficiently well attested to classify). Two (super-) family proposals, Penutian and
Hokan generally along the Pacific coast of North America that are gaining currency among linguists, would
reduce the number of language families in North America to about fifteen. However, in large portions of the
Southeast United States where it is known that there was considerable pre-Columbian linguistic diversity,
there are no attested indigenous languages and the populations in question either left no survivors, or all
remaining speakers of relocated tribes with diminished numbers underwent language shift as their ancestral
languages became moribund.
Mesoamerica was home to one of the most developed succession of farming societies in the Americas in the
pre-Columbian era. Mesoamerica's attested languages are likewise quite well systematized into six main
language families and four other language isolates or small language families, as well as a few unclassified
extinct languages, encompassing all of the languages in the region. Mesoamerica is also the only part of the
Print
23 of
07-07-2014 18:50
Americas in which written languages were in use in the pre-Columbian era.

In South America there are about 350 living indigenous languages (in addition to many creoles) and an
estimated more than one thousand extinct languages, grouped into more than 140 categories, only ten of
which have more than five languages which have been demonstrated to belong to the same language family.
This is about three times as much linguistic diversity at the language family/language isolate level as North
America and Mesoamerica combined. The nave expectation from population genetics would have been that
there would be less linguistic diversity, because the entire indigenous population of South America appears
to derive genetically from only a subset of an already small indigenous founder population of the Americas
as a whole, something illustrated, for example, by its lack several of the less common genetic haplotypes
found in indigenous America outside South America (although genetic diversity has accumulated in these
populations over time through mutations distinguishing these populations from the founder population
genomes). Some of the lack of classification of indigenous South American languages may be simply
attributable to the small number of linguists devoted to the task and the limited amount of information
available about many of the languages. But the languages of the region may also simply be particularly
diverse due to separation by great time depth and geographic isolation. The only other place in the world
with comparable linguistic diversity that has not been reduced to a small number of language families is
Papua New Guinea, which also experienced many millennia of isolation from the rest of the world that
ended only relatively recently.
Implications of current research

The Out of Africa theory of human origins marshals archeological, genetic, and ancient climate evidence to
suggest a common origin for all modern humans in Africa about 70,000 years ago and an origin for farming
and herding about 8,000 to 10,000 years ago.[135]
We also have some idea about the time depth of these languages. For example, the Urheimats in which the
proto-languages of the subfamilies are the Indo-European language family necessarily arose more recently
than the Proto-Indo-European language family. Similarly, a language superfamily's proto-language must have
been spoken in an Urheimat not more recent than the time depth of the oldest language in the language
family. The time and place of the Urheimats of various language family proto-languages spoken by most
people alive today is in many cases much more recent than either the Out of Africa date or the origin of
farming and herding. The relatively young time depth of modern language families can arise from at least
two factors: prior languages went extinct as other languages expanded,[50] and some language families may
have deeper connections at a greater time depth.
It will probably never be possible to know with any great confidence what the linguistic landscape of the
world looked like 18,000 years ago, and even determining what the linguistic landscape of the world looked
like 8,000 years ago is a profound challenge and highly controversial undertaking. It is unlikely that it is
possible to reconstruct a historical Tower of Babel linguistic community in which all humans spoke a
common language (although we can say with confidence that large stone edifices built by large organized
communities of people, which date to the Neolithic era at the earliest, weren't built by any culture on Earth
until at least many tens of thousands of years after there was a hypothetical common language of all humans,
or even of all Eurasians), or to gain very specific insight about what the language the original protoEurasians or the earliest modern humans spoke, although the lack of instances of writing more than about
5,500 years ago, despite the extensive recovery of earlier artifacts and art from prehistory, makes it unlikely
that earlier humans had anything approaching a complete written language. Proto-linguistic markings used in
trade are only a few thousand years older.
Evidence from pre-Columbian languages in the Americas and from places like Papua New Guinea and
Australia that were isolated during periods of linguistic consolidation in the rest of the world, suggest that
pre-Neolithic revolution societies had a great many languages relative to their populations, most of which are
now irrevocably lost. The great linguistic diversity of these regions that presumably had at most one or two
Print
24 of
07-07-2014 18:50
languages when first settled by modern humans, given the founding population sizes for them implied by
population genetic evidence, reinforces the impossibility of making any meaningful statements about the
nature of a proto-language at a time depth of tens of thousands of years.
The expansion of particular major language families is frequently associated with the adoption of superior
food production, military technologies or social organization by a particular group of people that allowed
them to expand and exert dominance over neighborhoring societies, either ruling them or replacing them. For
example, the domestication of horses is frequently associated with the expansion of the Indo-European
language family (other linguists see an earlier expansion date which they attribute to the expansion to
farming and herding), the expansion of the Chinese language is sometimes associated first with millet and
later with rice farming, and the development of crops and domesticated animals that can thrive in tropical
environments may have been one factor in Bantu expansion. Some of the examples of this, such as the
expansions of the Hungarian, Turkish, Arabic and Chinese languages, are historically documented. Other
language replacement events are lost to history and must be inferred.
Limitations of the concept of Urheimat

Creoles
The concept of an Urheimat only applies to populations speaking a proto-language defined by the tree
model. This is not always the case. For example, creole languages are hybrids of languages that are
sometimes unrelated. Similarities arise from the creole formation process, rather than from genetic
descent.[136] For example, a creole language may lack significant inflectional morphology, lack tone on
monosyllabic words, or lack semantically opaque word formation, even if these features are found in all of
the parent languages of the languages from which the creole was formed.[137]
Isolates
Some languages are language isolates. That is, they have no well accepted language family connection, no
nodes in a family tree, and therefore no known Urheimat. An example is the Basque language of Northern
Spain. Nevertheless it is a scientific fact that all languages evolve. An unknown Urheimat may still be
hypothesized, such as that for a Proto-Basque, and may be defended by archaeological and historical
evidence.
Sometimes relatives are found for a language originally believed to be an isolate. An example is the Etruscan
language, which, even though only partially understood, was found to be related to the Raetic language and
to the Lemnian language. A single family may be an isolate. In the case of the non-Austronesian indigenous
languages of Papua New Guinea and the indigneous languages of Australia, there is no published linguistic
hypothesis supported by any evidence that these languages have links to any other families. Nevertheless an
unknown Urheimat is implied. The entire Indo-European family itself is a language isolate: no further
connections are known. This lack of information does not prevent some professional linguists from
formulating additional hypothetical nodes (Nostratic) and additional homelands for the speakers.
Shared urheimats
Other circumstances can also complicate the matter. For example, in places where language families meet,
like the interface of the Nilo-Saharan and Afro-Asiatic language family in Western Ethiopia, the relationship
between a group that speaks a language and the Urheimat for that language is complicated by "processes of
migration, language shift and group absorption are documented by linguists and ethnographers" in groups
that are themselves "transient and plastic."[138]
Also, over a sufficient period of time, in the absence of evidence of intermediary steps in the process, it may
Print
25 of
07-07-2014 18:50
be impossible to observe linkages between languages that have a shared urheimat. This general concern is a
manifestation of the larger issue of "time depth" in historical linguistics.[139] For example, while the
evidence from genetics, archeology and historical climate change strongly points to a relatively small number
of waves in a fairly short time period from Asia to the Americas,[140] there continues to be intense
controversy regarding the classification of the indigenous languages of the Americas, for which there is little
direct evidence because all but a couple of those languages were not written in the pre-Columbian era, and
in Australia and New Guinea, whose history of human migration and contact is also well documented.[141]
Given enough time, natural change in isolated language can obliterate any meaningful linguistic evidence of
a known common genetic source for the languages.
See also
Sprachraum
Nationalism and ancient history
Footnotes
1. ^ Mallory 1989, p. 143.
Indus Script" (http://www.harappa.com/script
2. ^ Mallory 1997, p. 106.
/indusscript.html). Harappa.com.
3. ^ Anthony, David W (2010). The horse, the wheel,
10. ^ Witzel, Michael (1999). "Substrate Languages in
and language: how Bronze-Age riders from the
Old Indo-Aryan"
Eurasian steppes shaped the modern world.
(http://www.ejvs.laurasianacademy.com/ejvs0501
Princeton, N.J.; Woodstock: Princeton University
/0501ART.PDF). Electronic Journal of Vedic
Press. p. 48.
Studies 5 (1): 167.
4. ^ Herwig Wolfram, Die Germanen, Beck (1999).

5. ^ "Dravidian languages." Encyclopdia
11. ^ Sahoo, Sanghamitra; Singh, Anamika; Himabindu,

G. et al. (2006). "A prehistory of Indian Y
Britannica. 2008. Encyclopdia Britannica Online.
chromosomes: Evaluating demic diffusion
5 June 2008
scenarios" (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
6. ^ Krishnamurti, Bhadriraju (2003). The Dravidian
/pmc/articles/PMC1347984). Proceedings of the
Languages. Cambridge University Press.
National Academy of Sciences 103 (4): 843848.
ISBN 0-521-77111-0. Lay summary
Bibcode:2006PNAS..103..843S
(http://www.frontline.in/navigation/?type=static&
(http://adsabs.harvard.edu
page=archiveSearch&aid=20031107000807300&
/abs/2006PNAS..103..843S).
ais=22&avol=20) Frontline (Chennai) 20 (22)
doi:10.1073/pnas.0507714103 (http://dx.doi.org
(October 25, 2003).
/10.1073%2Fpnas.0507714103). PMC 1347984
7. ^ Moorti, Etukoori Balaraama in Andhra
(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles
Samkshipta Charitra. "Proto-Dravidian Study of
/PMC1347984). PMID 16415161
Dravidian Linguistics and Civilization"
(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16415161).
(http://lists.hcs.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/protodravidian).
8. ^ Southworth, Franklin C. (2006). "Proto-
12. ^ Sengupta, Sanghamitra; Zhivotovsky, Lev A.;

King, Roy et al. (2006). "Polarity and Temporality
of High-Resolution Y-Chromosome Distributions
Dravidian Agriculture" (http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu
in India Identify Both Indigenous and Exogenous
/~fsouth/Proto-DravidianAgriculture.pdf).
Expansions and Reveal Minor Genetic Influence of
University of Pennsylvania.
Central Asian Pastoralists"
9. ^ Parpola, Asko. "Introduction to Study of the
(http://download.cell.com/AJHG/pdf
Print
26 of
07-07-2014 18:50
/PIIS0002929707623532.pdf). American Journal
doi:10.2307/592159 (http://dx.doi.org
of Human Genetics 78 (2): 20221.
/10.2307%2F592159).
21. ^ Burrow, T. (1944), "Dravidian Studies IV: The
/10.1086%2F499411). PMC 1380230
Body in Dravidian and Uralian", Bulletin of the
School of Oriental and African Studies 11 (2):
/PMC1380230). PMID 16400607
328356, doi:10.1017/s0041977x00072517
(http://dx.doi.org
13. ^ Sharma, Swarkar; Saha, Anjana; Rai, Ekta; Bhat,

Audesh; Bamezai, Ramesh (2005), "Human
mtDNA hypervariable regions, HVR I and II, hint at
/10.1017%2Fs0041977x00072517).
22. ^ Zvelebil, Kamal (2006). Dravidian Languages. In
Encyclopdia Britannica (DVD edition).
deep common maternal founder and subsequent
23. ^ Andronov, Mikhail S. (1971), "Comparative
maternal gene flow in Indian population groups",
Studies on the Nature of Dravidian-Uralian
Journal of Human Genetics 50 (10): 497506,
Parallels: A Peep into the Prehistory of Language
doi:10.1007/s10038-005-0284-2 (http://dx.doi.org
Families". Proceedings of the Second
/10.1007%2Fs10038-005-0284-2),
International Conference of Tamil Studies Madras.
PMID 16205836 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
267277.
/pubmed/16205836)
24. ^ Zvelebil, Kamal (1970), Comparative Dravidian
14. ^ Human Genome Diversity Project
Phonology Mouton, The Hauge. at p. 22 contains a
15. ^ Majumder, Partha P. (2010), "The Human
bibliography of articles supporting and opposing
Genetic History of South Asia", Current Biology

20 (4): R1847, doi:10.1016/j.cub.2009.11.053
the theory
25. ^ Krishnamurti, Bhadriraju (2003). The Dravidian
(http://dx.doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.cub.2009.11.053),
Languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press. p. 43. ISBN 0-521-77111-0.
/pubmed/20178765)
16. ^ Cavalli-Sforza, Luigi Luca (1994). The History
26. ^ Martnez-Cruz, Begoa; Vitalis, Renaud;

Sgurel1, Laure et al. (8 September 2010). "In the
and Geography of Human Genes. Princeton
heartland of Eurasia: the multilocus genetic
University Press. ISBN 978-0691087504.
landscape of Central Asian populations"
17. ^ Sergent, Bernard (1997). "Dravidians and
(http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v19/n2
Melano-Indians" (http://www.svabhinava.org
/full/ejhg2010153a.html). European Journal of
/AITvsOIT/Sergent-AfroDravidian-frame.php). La
Human Genetics 19 (2).
Gense de l'Inde. Translated from French by
doi:10.1038/ejhg.2010.153 (http://dx.doi.org
Visuvalingam, Sunthar. Paris: Payot. pp. 4584.
/10.1038%2Fejhg.2010.153).
18. ^ "Dravidian languages." Encyclopdia
27. ^ Di Benedetto, G.; Ergven, A. E.; Stenico, M.;
Britannica. 2008. Encyclopdia Britannica Online.
Castr, L.; Bertorelle, G.; Togan, I.; Barbujani, G.
30 Jun. 2008
(2001). "DNA diversity and population admixture
19. ^ Tyler, Stephen (1968), "Dravidian and Uralian:
in Anatolia". American Journal of Physical
the lexical evidence", Language 44 (4): 798812,
Anthropology 115 (2): 144156.
doi:10.1002/ajpa.1064 (http://dx.doi.org
/10.2307%2F411899).
/10.1002%2Fajpa.1064). PMID 11385601
20. ^ Webb, Edward (1860), "Evidences of the

Scythian Affinities of the Dravidian Languages,
28. ^ Rna-Tas, Andrs. "The Reconstruction of
Condensed and Arranged from Rev. R. Caldwell's
Proto-Turkic and the Genetic Question." In: The
Comparative Dravidian Grammar", Journal of the
Turkic Languages (http://books.google.co.uk
American Oriental Society 7: 271298,
/books?id=U1009DRu_vMC), pp. 67-80. 1998.
Print
27 of
07-07-2014 18:50
29. ^ "DeneYeniseic Symposium, University of
42. ^ Jubainville, H. D'Arbois de (1889, 1894). Les
Alaska Fairbanks, February 2008"
Premiers Habitants de l'Europe d'aprs les
(http://web.archive.org/web/20090526221250/http:
crivains de l'Antiquit et les Travaux des
//www.uaf.edu/anlc/dy2008.html). Archived from
Linguistes: Seconde dition. Paris: Ernest Thorin.
the original (http://www.uaf.edu/anlc/dy2008.html)
pp. V.II, Book II, Chapter 9, Sections 10, 11.
on 2009-05-26.
(French). Downloadable Google Books.
30. ^ Vovin, Alexander (2000). "Did the Xiong-nu
43. ^ Hammer; Karafet, et al, (2001). "Hierarchical
speak a Yeniseian language?". Central Asiatic
Patterns of Global Human Y-Chromosome
Journal 44 (1): 87104.
Diversity" (http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org
31. ^ Vovin, Alexander. (2002). 'Did the Xiongnu
/cgi/content/full/18/7/1189#T4). Molecular Biology
speak a Yeniseian language? Part 2: Vocabulary', in
and Evolution 18 (7): 11891203.
Altaica Budapestinensia MMII, Proceedings of the
doi:10.1093/oxfordjournals.molbev.a003906
45th Permanent International Altaistic Conference,
(http://dx.doi.org
Budapest, June 2328, pp. 389394.
/10.1093%2Foxfordjournals.molbev.a003906).
32. ^ Pulleyblank, Edwin G. (2002). Central Asia and
44. ^ a b c Michael C. Campbell and Sarah A.
Non-Chinese Peoples of Ancient China. Variorum
Tishkoff, "The Evolution of Human Genetic and
Collected Studies Series, 731.
Phenotypic Variation in Africa," Current Biology,
ISBN 978-0-86078-859-1.
Volume 20, Issue 4, R166R173, 23 February 2010
33. ^ Starostin, Sergei A. (1991). On the Hypothesis of
45. ^ Blench, Roger. KORDOFANIAN and Niger
a Genetic Connection Between the Sino-Tibetan
Congo: NEW AND REVISED LEXICAL
Languages and the Yeniseian and North Caucasian
EVIDENCE"(Draft) (http://www.rogerblench.info
Languages. In Shevoroshkin (1991): 1241.
/Language/Niger-Congo/Kordofanian
[Translation of Starostin 1984]
/Kordofanian%20and%20Niger-Congo.pdf).
34. ^ Bengtson, John D. (1998). Caucasian and
46. ^ Blench, R.M. 1995, 'Is NigerCongo simply a
Sino-Tibetan: A Hypothesis of S. A. Starostin.
branch of Nilo-Saharan?' In: Proceedings of the
General Linguistics, Vol. 36, no. 1/2, 1998 (1996).
Fifth Nilo-Saharan Linguistics Colloquium, Nice,
Pegasus Press, University of North Carolina,
1992. ed. R. Nicolai and F. Rottland. 68-118.
Asheville, North Carolina.
Kln: Rudiger Kppe.
35. ^ Collinder, Bjrn. Jukagirisch und Uralisch

('Yukaghir and Uralic') 1940.)
36. ^ Collinder, Bjrn. 1965. An Introduction to the
47. ^ Gregersen, Edgar A. (1972) 'Kongo-Saharan'.

Journal of African Linguistics, 4, 46-56.
48. ^ Khan, Razib (August 29, 2011). "Tutsi probably
Uralic Languages. Berkeley and Los Angeles:
differ genetically from the Hutu"
University of California Press. 1965.
(http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2011
37. ^
a b
Trask, R.L. The History of Basque Routledge:
1997 ISBN 0-415-13116-2

38. ^ Jos Ignacio Hualde, Joseba Lakarra, Robert
Lawrence Trask (1995), Towards a history of the
/08/tutsi-differ-genetically-from-the-hutu/#more13708). Gene Expression. Discover. Retrieved

September 12, 2011.
49. ^ Khan, Razib (August 31, 2011). "Tutsi genetic,
Basque language, p. 81. John Benjamins Publishing
ii" (http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2011
Company, ISBN 90-272-3634-8.
/08/tutsi-genetics-ii/). Gene Expression. Discover.
39. ^ A Final (?) Response to the Basque Debate in

Mother Tongue 1 (John D. Bengston)
40. ^ Theo Vennemann homepage
41. ^ J.P. Mallory, "In Search of the Indo-Europeans"
(1989)
Retrieved September 12, 2011.

50. ^ a b c d e Jared Diamond, "Guns, Germs and
Steel" (2000)
51. ^ a b c Blench, Roger (2004). THE
BENUE-CONGO LANGUAGES: A PROPOSED
Print
28 of
07-07-2014 18:50
INTERNAL CLASSIFICATION (Unpublished
and the 'Bantu Expansion' ", Journal of African
Working Draft) (http://www.rogerblench.info
History 36: 173195,
/Language/Niger-Congo/BC/General/Benue-
doi:10.1017/S0021853700034101
Congo%20classification%20latest.pdf).
(http://dx.doi.org
52. ^ See also Bendor-Samuel, J. ed. 1989. The

NigerCongo Languages. Lanham: University Press
of America.
53. ^ Westermann, D. 1922a. Die Sprache der Guang.
Berlin: Dietrich Reimer.
54. ^ Greenberg, J.H. 1964. Historical inferences from
linguistic research in sub-Saharan Africa. Boston
University Papers in African History, 1:115.
55. ^ Herman Bell. 1995. The Nuba Mountains: Who
Spoke What in 1976?. (The published results from
a major project of the Institute of African and
/10.1017%2FS0021853700034101).
65. ^ Flight, C. 1980. Malcolm Guthrie and the
reconstruction of Bantu prehistory. History in
Africa, 7:81118.
66. ^ Flight, C. 1988. The Bantu expansion and the
SOAS network. History in Africa, 15:261-301.
67. ^ Bastin, Y. 1994. Reconstruction formelle et
smantique de la dnomination de quelques
mammiferes en Bantou. Afrikanische
Arbeitspapiere, 38:5132.
68. ^ a b Patin, E. (2009). "Inferring the Demographic
Asian Studies: the Language Survey of the Nuba
History of African Farmers and Pygmy Hunter
Mountains.)
Gatherers Using a Multilocus Resequencing Data
56. ^ Williamson, Kay & Blench, Roger (2000) 'Niger
Set" (http://www.plosgenetics.org/article
Congo', in Heine, Bernd & Nurse, Derek (eds.)
/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pgen.100044
African languages: an introduction, Cambridge:
8). PLoS Genetics 5 (4).
Cambridge University Press.
doi:10.1371/journal.pgen.1000448
57. ^ Gerrit Dimmendaal (2008) "Language Ecology
(http://dx.doi.org
and Linguistic Diversity on the African Continent",
/10.1371%2Fjournal.pgen.1000448).
Language and Linguistics Compass 2/5:841.
PMC 2661362 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
58. ^ Williamson, K. 1971. The BenueCongo

languages and Ijo. Current Trends in Linguistics, 7.
/pmc/articles/PMC2661362). PMID 19360089

ed. T. Sebeok 245-306. The Hague: Mouton.
69. ^ Spurdle, AB; Jenkins, T (1996), "The origins of
59. ^ Williamson, K. 1988. Linguistic evidence for the
the Lemba "Black Jews" of southern Africa:
prehistory of the Niger Delta. The early history of
evidence from p12F2 and other Y-chromosome
the Niger Delta, edited by E.J. Alagoa, F.N.
markers.", American Journal of Human Genetics
Anozie and N. Nzewunwa. Hamburg: Helmut
59 (5): 112633, PMC 1914832
Buske Verlag.
60. ^ Williamson, K. 1989. BenueCongo Overview.

In The NigerCongo Languages. J. Bendor-Samuel
ed. Lanham: University Press of America.
61. ^ De Wolf, P. 1971. The noun class system of
Proto-BenueCongo. The Hague: Mouton.
62. ^ Blench, R.M. 1989. A proposed new
/PMC1914832), PMID 8900243

(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8900243)
70. ^ Blench, Roger (2007). New
palaeozoogeographical evidence for the
settlement of Madagascar
(http://www.rogerblench.info/Archaeology
classification of BenueCongo languages.
/Indian%20Ocean
Afrikanische Arbeitspapiere, Kln, 17:115-147.
/Blench%20final%20Azania%202007.pdf).
63. ^ Greenberg, J.H. 1972. Linguistic evidence
71. ^ Wittmann, Henri (1972). "Le caractre
regarding Bantu origins. Journal of African History,
gntiquement composite des changements
13.
phontiques du malgache." Proceedings of the
64. ^ Vansina, J.T. (1995), "New Linguistic Evidence
International Congress of Phonetic Sciences
Print
29 of
07-07-2014 18:50
7.807-10. La Haye: Mouton.[1]

(http://homepage.mac.com/noula/ling/1972amalgache.pdf)
72. ^ Ferrand, Gabriel (1905). Les migrations
musulmanes et juives Madagascar. Paris: Revue
de l'histoire des religions.
73. ^ Khan, Razib (September 9, 2011). "The Merina
guages.aspx). Retrieved 2 August 2011.

80. ^ Sidwell, Paul (2009). "Family Diversity and the
Austroasiatic Homeland" (http://icaal.org/abstract
/sidwell-family.pdf) (PDF). Retrieved 2 August
2011.
81. ^ Kumar, Vikrant et al, Y-chromosome evidence
suggests a common paternal heritage of
of Madagascar are Malay and Bantu"
Austroasiatic populations, BMC Evol Biol. 2007,
(http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2011
7: 47.
/09/the-merina-of-madagascar-are-malay-
82. ^ Roger Blench, "Stratification in the peopling of
and-bantu/). Gene Expression. Discover. Retrieved
China: how far does the linguistic evidence match
September 12, 2011.
genetics and archaeology?," Paper for the
74. ^ "The Sino-Tibetan Language Family"
Symposium "Human migrations in continental East
(http://stedt.berkeley.edu
Asia and Taiwan: genetic, linguistic and
/html/STfamily.html#TBlg). Sino-Tibetan
archaeological evidence". Geneva June 1013,
Etymological Dictionary and Thesaurus.
2004. Universit de Genve.
University of California at Berkeley. June 29,

2011.
75. ^ George van Driem, "Language change,
83. ^ a b c Li, Hui; Huang, Ying; Mustavich, Laura F.;

Zhang, Fan; Tan, Jing-Ze; Wang, Ling-E; Qian, Ji;
Gao, Meng-He; Jin, Li (2007). "Y chromosomes of
conjugational morphology and the Sino-Tibetan
prehistoric people along the Yangtze River.".
Urheimat,"(1993)
Human Genetics 122 (3-4): 3838.
76. ^ Wang, B; Zhang, Y-B; Zhang, F et al. (2011). "On
doi:10.1007/s00439-007-0407-2 (http://dx.doi.org
the Origin of Tibetans and Their Genetic Basis in
/10.1007%2Fs00439-007-0407-2).
Adapting High-Altitude Environments"
(http://www.plosone.org/article
/pubmed/17657509).
/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.001700
84. ^ Cai, X; Qin, Z; Wen, B; Xu, S; Wang, Y (2011).
2). PLoS ONE 6 (2): e17002.
"Human Migration through Bottlenecks from
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0017002
Southeast Asia into East Asia during Last Glacial
(http://dx.doi.org
Maximum Revealed by Y Chromosomes"
/10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0017002).
(http://www.plosone.org/article
77. ^ Schirokauer & Brown 2006. "A Brief history of
/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.002428
Chinese civilization: second edition" Wadsworth, a
2). PLoS ONE 6 (8): e24282.
division of Thomson Learning, pp. 2547
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0024282
78. ^ Sidwell, Pascale. "Austroasiatic Languages"
(http://dx.doi.org
(http://web.archive.org/web/20120121120754/http:
/10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0024282).
//www.bookrags.com/research/austroasiatic-
PMC 3164178 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
languages-ema-01/). BookRags. Archived from the
/pmc/articles/PMC3164178). PMID 21904623
original (http://www.bookrags.com/research
/austroasiatic-languages-ema-01/) on 2012-01-21.
79. ^ Sidwell, Paul (2010). "Seminar: "A SEAsian
homeland for the Austroasiatic Languages" "
(http://linguistics.hss.ntu.edu.sg/AboutLMS
85. ^ Thurgood, G. (1994). "TaiKadai and

Austronesian: the nature of the relationship."
Oceanic Linguistics 33.345368.
86. ^ Blench, Roger (2004). "Stratification in the
/newsevents/Pages
peopling of China: how far does the linguistic
/A_SEAsianHomelandForTheAustroasiatic%20Lan
evidence match genetics and archaeology?" (PDF)
Print
30 of
07-07-2014 18:50
Paper for the Symposium : Human migrations in
Laura F.; Ou, Caiying; Zhou, Zhenjian; Li, Shilin;
continental East Asia and Taiwan: genetic,
Jin, Li; Li, Hui (2010). "Genetic origin of Kadai-
linguistic and archaeological evidence. Geneva,
speaking Gelong people on Hainan island viewed
June 1013.
from Y chromosomes.". Journal of Human
87. ^ Carr. M. (1986). Austro-Tai *Tsum(b)anget
Genetics 55 (7): 4628. doi:10.1038/jhg.2010.50
'spirit' and Archaic Chinese *XmwngXmwet
(http://dx.doi.org/10.1038%2Fjhg.2010.50).
'bliss'. Tky: Tky Gaikokugo Daigaku.
88. ^ Li, Hui (2005). Genetic structure of Austro-Tai

populations. PhD Thesis of Human Biology, Fudan
University.
89. ^ Roger Blench & Alicia Sanchez-Mazas, eds. The
Peopling of East Asia: Putting Together
Archaeology, Linguistics and Genetics.
90. ^ Ostapirat, Weera. 2005. "KraDai and
Austronesian: Notes on phonological
correspondences and vocabulary distribution."
91. ^ Sagart, Laurent. (2002). "Sino-Tibeto-
/pubmed/20485445).
99. ^ Tumen D., "Anthropology of Archaeological
Populations from Northeast Asia [2]
(http://user.dankook.ac.kr/~oriental/Journal
/pdf_new/49/11.pdf) page 25,27
100. ^ Ts. Baasansuren "The scholar who showed the
true Mongolia to the world", Summer 2010 vol.6
(14) Mongolica, pp.40
101. ^ "Archeological Sensation-Ancient Mummy
Found in Mongolia" (http://www.spiegel.de
Austronesian: An updated and improved
/international/0,1518,433600,00.html). Spiegel
argument." (PDF) Paper presented at Ninth
Online. 2006-08-25. Retrieved 2010-05-02.
International Conference on Austronesian

Linguistics (ICAL9). 811 January 2002. Canberra,
Australia.
92. ^ Sagart, L. 2004. "The higher phylogeny of
102. ^ Thomas T.Allsen Culture and conquest in

Mongol Eurasia.
103. ^ a b Turchin, Peter; Peiros, Ilia; Gell-Mann,
Murray. "Analyzing Genetic Connections between
Austronesian and the position of TaiKadai."
Languages by Matching Consonant Classes"
Oceanic Linguistics 43. 411440.
(http://cliodynamics.info/PDF/ConsClass.pdf).
93. ^ Sagart, Laurent 2005. "Sino-Tibetan
104. ^ Blaek, Vclav. 2006. "Current progress in
Austronesian: an updated and improved argument."
Altaic etymology." Linguistica Online, 30 January
Laurent Sagart, Roger Blench & Alicia Sanchez-
2006
Mazas, eds. The Peopling of East Asia: Putting
105. ^ Martin, Samuel E. (1966): Lexical Evidence
Together Archaeology, Linguistics and Genetics.
Relating Japanese to Korean. Language 42/2:
London: Routledge Curzon, pp. 161176.
185251.
94. ^ Benedict, Paul K. (1942). "Thai, Kadai and
106. ^ Martin, Samuel E. (1990): Morphological clues
Indonesian: a new alignment in south east Asia."
to the relationship of Japanese and Korean. In:
American Anthropologist 44.576601.
Philip Baldi (ed.): Linguistic Change and
95. ^ Benedict, Paul K. (1975). Austro-Thai language

and culture, with a glossary of roots. New Haven:
HRAF Press. ISBN 0-87536-323-7.
96. ^ Benedict, Paul K. (1990). Japanese/Austro-Tai.
Ann Arbor: Karoma. ISBN 0-89720-078-0.
97. ^ * Reid, LA (2006). "Austro-Tai Hypotheses".
Reconstruction Methodology. Trends in

Linguistics: Studies and Monographs 45: 483-509.
107. ^ Miller, Roy Andrew (1971): Japanese and the
Other Altaic Languages. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press. ISBN 0-226-52719-0.
108. ^ Miller, Roy Andrew (1996): Languages and
Pp. 609610 in Keith Brown (editor in chief), The
History: Japanese, Korean and Altaic. Oslo:
Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, 2nd
Institute for Comparative Research in Human
edition.
Culture. ISBN 974-8299-69-4.
98. ^ Li, Dongna; Sun, Yuantian; Lu, Yan; Mustavich,
109. ^ Sergei Starostin. Altaiskaya problema i
31 ofPrint
07-07-2014 18:50
proishozhdeniye yaponskogo yazika
/past/japanese/ipix/5/5-14.html). Long Journey to
(http://www.alib.ru/findp.php4?author=%D1%F2
Prehistorical Japan (in Japanese). National
%E0%F0%EE%F1%F2%E8%ED&title=%C0%EB
Museum of Nature and Science (Japan). Retrieved
%F2%E0%E9%F1%EA%E0%FF+%EF%F0%EE
2013-09-19.
%E1%EB%E5%EC%E0+%E8+%EF%F0
120. ^ Mark J. Hudson (1999). Ruins of Identity
%EE%E8%F1%F5%EE%E6%E4%E5%ED%E8
Ethnogenesis in the Japanese Islands. University
%E5+%FF%EF%EE%ED%F1%EA%EE
Hawai'i Press. ISBN 0-8248-2156-4.
%E3%EE+%FF%E7%FB%EA%E0+) (The Altaic

Problem and the Origins of the Japanese
Language).
110. ^ Vovin, Alexander: Koreo-Japonica. University of
Hawai'i Press. 2008.
111. ^ Beckwith, Christopher I. 2004. Koguryo: The
Language of Japan's Continental Relatives: An
Introduction to the Historical-Comparative Study
121. ^ (1982)(
)p.65
122. ^ , , , 2001,
ISBN 4-09-501407-5
123. ^ Dixon, R. M. W. 2002. Australian Languages:
Their Nature and Development. Cambridge
University Press
124. ^ "Comparing Ancient and Modern DNA
of the Japanese-Koguryoic Languages. Leiden:
Variability in Human Populations"
Brill.
(http://www.mnhn.fr/mnhn/ecoanthropologie
112. ^ Beckwith, Christopher I. 2006. "Methodological
/Porto2011
observations on some recent studies of the early
/Porto2011_program.html#CRAWFORD).
ethnolinguistic history of Korea and vicinity." Altai
International Conference in Porto, Portugal
Hakpo 16, 199-234.
(November 2011), Michael H. Crawford, "Current
113. ^ Beckwith, Christopher I. 2006b. "The
developments in molecular and population genetics
ethnolinguistic history of the early Korean
of contemporary and ancient Aleut and Eskimo
peninsula region: Japanese-Koguryoic and other
populations"; Maanasa Raghavan, "Prehistoric
languages in the Koguryo, Paekche, and Silla
migrations into the New World High-Arctic: A
kingdoms." (page 33 ff.) Journal of Inner and East
genetic perspective"; Justin Tackney, "Ancient and
Asian Studies 2.2, 34-64.
modern genetic diversity of Iupiat populations
114. ^
a bcd
Diamond, Jared (June 1998). "Japanese
Roots" (http://discovermagazine.com/1998/jun
/japaneseroots1455/). Discover 19 (6).
115. ^ Nakahori, Yutaka (2005). Y
from the Alaskan North Slope: insights into Paleoand Neo-Eskimo origins".
125. ^ "Ancient Bronze Artifact from East Asia
Unearthed at Alaska Archaeology Site"
(Y Senshokutai kara Mita Nihonjin). Iwanami
(http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/11
Science Library. ISBN 978-4-00-007450-6.
/111114112314.htm). Science Daily. Nov 14, 2011.
116. ^ Chaussonnet, Valerie (1995) Native Cultures of

Alaska and Siberia. Page 35. Arctic Studies
Retrieved 2013-09-19.
126. ^ Fleming, Harold C. 1987. "Towards a definitive
Center. Washington, D.C. 112p. ISBN
classification of the world's languages."
1-56098-661-1
Diachronica 4.1/2:159-223.
117. ^ Shafer, R. (1965). "Studies in Austroasian II".

Studia Orientalia 30 (5).
127. ^ Morris Swadesh, "Linguistic relations across the

Bering Strait" American Anthropologist 64,
118. ^ Vovin, Alexander (1993). A Reconstruction of
1262-1291 (1962); Michael Fortescue, Language
Proto-Ainu. Leiden: Brill. ISBN 90-04-09905-0.
Relations across Bering Strait: Reappraising the
119. ^ ""
Archaeological and Linguistic Evidence. London
[Searching in China for the origin of the Yayoi
and New York: Cassell. ISBN 0-304-70330-3
people] (http://www.kahaku.go.jp/special
(1998); see also Knut Bergsland, "The Eskimo
Print
32 of
07-07-2014 18:50
Uralic Hypothesis" Journal de la Societ finno-
nthro). Department of Anthropology, University of
ougrienne 61, 1-29 (1959); Seefloth, Uwe "Die
Pennsylvania (Annual Review of Anthropology):
Entstehung polypersonaler Paradigmen im Uralo-
Vol. 33, 551583. 2004.
Siberischen" Zentralasiatische Studien 30,
doi:10.1146/annurev.anthro.33.070203.143932
163-191 (2000); Greenberg, Joseph H., "Review of
(http://dx.doi.org
Michael Fortescue, Language Relations across
/10.1146%2Fannurev.anthro.33.070203.143932).
Bering Strait: Reappraising the Archaeological and
Retrieved 2010-02-03.
Linguistic Evidence." Review of Archaeology 21.2,
133. ^ "Native American Mitochondrial DNA Analysis
23-24 (2000); Knnap, A. "Indo-European-Uralic-
Indicates That the Amerind and the Nadene
Siberian Linguistic and Cultural Contacts." Tartu,
Populations Were Founded by Two Independent
Estonia: University of Tartu, Division of Uralic
Migrations" (http://www.genetics.org/cgi/reprint
languages (1999).
/130/1/153). Center for Genetics and Molecular
128. ^ Jan Henrik 2005. Einfhrung in die eskimoaleutischen Sprachen. Hamburg: Buske.
129. ^ Jane H. Hill, Proto-Uto-Aztecan
(http://www.jstor.org/pss/684121), American
Anthropologist, 2001.
130. ^ Zegura SL, Karafet TM, Zhivotovsky LA,
Hammer MF (January 2004). "High-resolution
SNPs and microsatellite haplotypes point to a
Medicine and Departments of Biochemistry and

Anthropology, Emory University School of
Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia. Genetics Society of
America. Vol 130, 153-162. Retrieved 2009-11-28.
134. ^ Greenberg, J.H., and M. Ruhlen. (1992).
Linguistic Origins of Native Americans. Scientific
American 267.5 (November): 9499.
135. ^ Colin Renfrew, "Archaeogenetics Towards a
single, recent entry of Native American Y
New Synthesis?" Current Biology, Volume 20,
chromosomes into the Americas". Molecular
Issue 4, R162R165, 23 February 2010
Biology and Evolution 21 (1): 16475.
136. ^ McWhorter, J. H. (1998), "Identifying the Creole
doi:10.1093/molbev/msh009 (http://dx.doi.org
Prototype: Vindicating a Typological Class",
/10.1093%2Fmolbev%2Fmsh009).
Language 74 (4): 788818, doi:10.2307/417003
(http://dx.doi.org/10.2307%2F417003)
/pubmed/14595095).
131. ^ "mtDNA Variation among Greenland Eskimos.
137. ^ McWhorter, John H. (1999), "The Afrogenesis

Hypothesis of Plantation Creole Origin", in Huber,
The Edge of the Beringian Expansion"
Magnus; Mikael, Spreading the Word: The Issue of
(http://www.cell.com/AJHG/abstract
Diffusion among the Atlantic Creoles, London:
/S0002-9297%2807%2963257-1). Laboratory of
Westminster University Press, pp. 111152
Biological Anthropology, Institute of Forensic
138. ^ Poloni ES, Naciri Y, Bucho R, Niba R, Kervaire
Medicine, University of Copenhagen,
B, Excoffier L, Langaney A, Sanchez-Mazas A.,
Copenhagen, McDonald Institute for
"Genetic evidence for complexity in ethnic
Archaeological Research,University of
differentiation and history in East Africa," Ann
Cambridge, Cambridge, University of Hamburg,
Hum Genet. 2009 Nov;73 (Pt 6):582600. Epub
Hamburg. 2000. doi:10.1086/303038
2009 Aug 25
(http://dx.doi.org/10.1086%2F303038). Retrieved
2009-11-22.
132. ^ "The peopling of the New World - Perspectives
from Molecular Anthropology"
(http://arjournals.annualreviews.org/doi/abs
139. ^ Renfrew, Colin; McMahon, April; Trask, Larry,

eds. (1999). Time Depth in Historical Linguistics
(http://www.amazon.com/dp/1902937066).
ISBN 978-1902937069.
140. ^ O'Rourke, Dennis H.; Raff, Jennifer A. (2010),
/10.1146
"The Human Genetic History of the Americas: The
/annurev.anthro.33.070203.143932?journalCode=a
Final Frontier", Current Biology 20 (4): R2027,
Print
33 of
07-07-2014 18:50
doi:10.1016/j.cub.2009.11.051 (http://dx.doi.org
Dispersal", Current Biology 20 (4): R194201,
/10.1016%2Fj.cub.2009.11.051), PMID 20178768
doi:10.1016/j.cub.2009.12.004 (http://dx.doi.org
/10.1016%2Fj.cub.2009.12.004), PMID 20178767
141. ^ Kayser, Manfred (2010), "The Human Genetic
History of Oceania: Near and Remote Views of
References
Linguistics and Ideology in the Study of Language by E. F. K. Koerner, University of Ottawa
(http://www.tulane.edu/%7Ehoward/LangIdeo/Koerner/Koerner.html) On linguistics and the search
for the original Indo-European homeland
Mallory, J.P. (1989), In Search of the Indo-Europeans: Language, Archaeology, and Myth, London:
Thames & Hudson.
Mallory, James P. (1997), "The homelands of the Indo-Europeans", in Blench, Roger; Spriggs,
Matthew, Archaeology and Language, I: Theoretical and Methodological Orientations, London:
Routledge, ISBN 0-415-11760-7.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Urheimat&
oldid=615692912#Dravidian_homeland"
Categories: Historical linguistics Origin hypotheses of ethnic groups German words and phrases
This page was last modified on 5 July 2014 at 13:28.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may
apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia is a registered
trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Print
34 of
07-07-2014 18:50

Urheimat - Wikipedia, The F..

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Urheimat - Wikipedia, The F..

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Urheimat - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

(Redirected from Dravidian homeland)