Newsgroups: sci.lang,sci.archaeology
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!news.mathworks.com!udel!gatech!howland.reston.ans.net!ix.netcom.com!netcom.com!sarima
From: sarima@netcom.com (Stanley Friesen)
Subject: Re: Origin of Agriculture and Bronze in East Asia
Message-ID: <sarimaD0683C.77x@netcom.com>
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
References: <rsavageCyt0CM.5L7@netcom.com> <Czox76.8Ct@inter.nl.net> <sarimaCzrD2x.CLL@netcom.com> <boyleCzsFDA.3uC@netcom.com>
Date: Fri, 2 Dec 1994 06:45:12 GMT
Lines: 63
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu sci.lang:33233 sci.archaeology:15654

In article <boyleCzsFDA.3uC@netcom.com>, Joseph Boyle <boyle@netcom.com> wrote:
>sarima@netcom.com (Stanley Friesen) writes:
>
>Sinitic is certainly intrusive in southern China, within the last 2000 
>years. Its age in northern China isn't clear, but all the recorded 
>civilizations are thought to be continuous, making a late arrival unlikely.

I believe that the northern chinese are part of the southern Asian
cluster genetically, rather than the northern Asian cluster.  At least
they *look* that way to me (admittedly a rather inconclusive basis).

Still, a movement of proto-chinese into the area at the time of
the beginning of the chinese bronze age seems quite possible,
as that is about the beginning of civilization there, and it is
later than the bronze age of Europe.
>
>It's not clear what genetics says about northern China. Cavalli-Sforza's 
>work treated China as a unit and may have only sampled southern Chinese. 
>(Again, please correct me with the details)

I wish I had them. Unfortunately, all I have is the Cavalli-Sforza
stuff right now.

Does anybody here know the answer to this?
>
>>arrival of bronze technology and agriculture long after they
>>appeared in Mesopotamia - and about the time that the collapse
>>of the earliest civilizations suggest the existance of extensive
>>tribal movements - is a good candidate for this arrival.
>
>The Spirit Cave excavation in Thailand found bronze and agricultural
>remains at a much earlier date, suggesting that they may have originated
>in Southeast Asia independent of Mesopotamia and spread north. (Does
>anyone have more details on this?)

The bronze technology of China was different than the Thai technology,
and it clearly spreads out of northern china - from the Shang cultural
area.  This suggests a closer tie with the central Asian bronze
age than the southeast sian bronze age.  [Also, I am unconvinced
of the total independence of the SE Asian development, as I
believe that even Spirit Cave is somewhat later than the earliest
Harappan levels - making a tie of some sort with India possible
- perhaps merely one of inspiration, of letting them know it was
possible].
>
>>In this model the Proto-Macro-Caucasian area would be eastern
>>Anatolia and southwards, and the Proto-Sino-Tibetan region would
>>be the eastern Zagros.
>
>Why so far south?
>
Well, mostly because that is adjacent to the Hurrian-Urartian
area, which extends south of the Caucasus somewhat - into the
upper Tigris-Euphrates valley, where the Mitanni Empire developed.
[The language of the Mitanni was apparently Hurrian-Urartian,
with some Aryan loan words].

The northern area may have been a Eurasiatic/Nostratic area.
-- 
NAMES: sarima@netcom.com swf@ElSegundoCA.ncr.com

May the peace of God be with you.

