Editing Austroasiatic languages (section)

=== Sidwell (2009&ndash;2015) ===
[[File:Mekong river basin.png|thumb|right|upright=1.81|[[Paul Sidwell]] and [[Roger Blench]] propose that the Austroasiatic phylum dispersed via the [[Mekong]] River [[drainage basin]].]]
[[Paul Sidwell]] (2009), in a [[lexicostatistical]] comparison of 36 languages which are well known enough to exclude loanwords, finds little evidence for internal branching, though he did find an area of increased contact between the Bahnaric and Katuic languages, such that languages of all branches apart from the geographically distant [[Munda languages|Munda]] and Nicobarese show greater similarity to Bahnaric and Katuic the closer they are to those branches, without any noticeable innovations common to Bahnaric and Katuic.

He therefore takes the conservative view that the thirteen branches of Austroasiatic should be treated as equidistant on current evidence. Sidwell & [[Roger Blench|Blench]] (2011) discuss this proposal in more detail, and note that there is good evidence for a Khasi–Palaungic node, which could also possibly be closely related to Khmuic.<ref name="SidwellBlench2011">Sidwell, Paul, and Roger Blench. 2011. "[http://rogerblench.info/Archaeology/SE%20Asia/SR09/Sidwell%20Blench%20offprint.pdf The Austroasiatic Urheimat: the Southeastern Riverine Hypothesis] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171118041741/http://www.rogerblench.info/Archaeology/SE |date=18 November 2017 }}." Enfield, NJ (ed.) ''Dynamics of Human Diversity'', 317–345. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.</ref>

If this would the case, Sidwell & Blench suggest that Khasic may have been an early offshoot of Palaungic that had spread westward. Sidwell & Blench (2011) suggest [[Shompen language|Shompen]] as an additional branch, and believe that a Vieto-Katuic connection is worth investigating. In general, however, the family is thought to have diversified too quickly for a deeply nested structure to have developed, since Proto-Austroasiatic speakers are believed by Sidwell to have radiated out from the central [[Mekong]] river valley relatively quickly.

Subsequently, Sidwell (2015a: 179)<ref>Sidwell, Paul. 2015a. "Austroasiatic classification." In Jenny, Mathias and Paul Sidwell, eds (2015). ''The Handbook of Austroasiatic Languages''. Leiden: Brill.</ref> proposed that [[Nicobarese languages|Nicobarese]] subgroups with [[Aslian languages|Aslian]], just as how Khasian and Palaungic subgroup with each other.

{{clade
| label1=Austroasiatic: {{nowrap|Mon–Khmer}}
| 1={{clade
| 1=[[Munda languages|Munda]]
| label2=Khasi–Palaungic
| 2={{clade
| 1=[[Khasic languages|Khasian]]
| 2=[[Palaungic languages|Palaungic]]
}}
| 3=[[Khmuic languages|Khmuic]]
| 4=[[Mang language|Mang]]{{refn|group=note|Earlier classifications by Sidwell had lumped [[Mang language|Mang]] and [[Pakanic languages|Pakanic]] together into a ''Mangic'' subgroup, but Sidwell currently considers Mang and Pakanic to each be independent branches of Austroasiatic.}}
| 5=[[Pakanic languages|Pakanic]]
| 6=[[Vietic languages|Vietic]]
| 7=[[Katuic languages|Katuic]]
| 8=[[Bahnaric languages|Bahnaric]]
| 9=[[Khmer language|Khmer]]
| 10=[[Pearic languages|Pearic]]
| label11=Aslian–Monic
| 11={{clade
| 1=[[Monic languages|Monic]]
| 2=[[Aslian languages|Aslian]]
}}
| 12={{clade
| 1=[[Nicobarese languages|Nicobarese]]
| 2=?[[Shompen language|Shompen]]
}}
}}
}}

A subsequent computational phylogenetic analysis (Sidwell 2015b)<ref>Sidwell, Paul. 2015b. [https://www.eva.mpg.de/fileadmin/content_files/linguistics/conferences/2015-diversity-linguistics/Sidwell_slides.pdf A comprehensive phylogenetic analysis of the Austroasiatic languages] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171215184958/http://www.eva.mpg.de/fileadmin/content_files/linguistics/conferences/2015-diversity-linguistics/Sidwell_slides.pdf |date=15 December 2017 }}. Presented at Diversity Linguistics: Retrospect and Prospect, 1–3 May 2015 (Leipzig, Germany), Closing conference of the Department of Linguistics at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology.</ref> suggests that Austroasiatic branches may have a loosely nested structure rather than a completely rake-like structure, with an east–west division (consisting of Munda, Khasic, Palaungic, and Khmuic forming a western group as opposed to all of the other branches) occurring possibly as early as 7,000 years before present. However, he still considers the subbranching dubious.

Integrating computational phylogenetic linguistics with recent archaeological findings, Paul Sidwell (2015c)<ref name="Sidwell2015">Sidwell, Paul. 2015c. ''Phylogeny, innovations, and correlations in the prehistory of Austroasiatic''. Paper presented at the workshop ''Integrating inferences about our past: new findings and current issues in the peopling of the Pacific and South East Asia'', 22–23 June 2015, Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History, Jena, Germany.</ref> further expanded his Mekong riverine hypothesis by proposing that Austroasiatic had ultimately expanded into [[Indochina]] from the [[Lingnan]] area of [[southern China]], with the subsequent Mekong riverine dispersal taking place after the initial arrival of Neolithic farmers from southern China.

Sidwell (2015c) tentatively suggests that Austroasiatic may have begun to split up 5,000 years B.P. during the [[Neolithic transition]] era of [[mainland Southeast Asia]], with all the major branches of Austroasiatic formed by 4,000 B.P. Austroasiatic would have had two possible dispersal routes from the western periphery of the [[Pearl River (China)|Pearl River]] watershed of [[Lingnan]], which would have been either a coastal route down the coast of Vietnam, or downstream through the [[Mekong River]] via [[Yunnan]].<ref name="Sidwell2015"/> Both the reconstructed lexicon of Proto-Austroasiatic and the archaeological record clearly show that early Austroasiatic speakers around 4,000 B.P. cultivated rice and [[millet]], kept livestock such as dogs, pigs, and chickens, and thrived mostly in estuarine rather than coastal environments.<ref name="Sidwell2015"/>

At 4,500 B.P., this "Neolithic package" suddenly arrived in Indochina from the Lingnan area without cereal grains and displaced the earlier pre-Neolithic hunter-gatherer cultures, with grain husks found in northern Indochina by 4,100 B.P. and in southern Indochina by 3,800 B.P.<ref name="Sidwell2015"/> However, Sidwell (2015c) found that iron is not reconstructable in Proto-Austroasiatic, since each Austroasiatic branch has different terms for iron that had been borrowed relatively lately from Tai, Chinese, Tibetan, Malay, and other languages.

During the [[Iron Age]] about 2,500 B.P., relatively young Austroasiatic branches in Indochina such as [[Vietic languages|Vietic]], [[Katuic languages|Katuic]], [[Pearic languages|Pearic]], and [[Khmer language|Khmer]] were formed, while the more internally diverse [[Bahnaric languages|Bahnaric]] branch (dating to about 3,000 B.P.) underwent more extensive internal diversification.<ref name="Sidwell2015"/> By the Iron Age, all of the Austroasiatic branches were more or less in their present-day locations, with most of the diversification within Austroasiatic taking place during the Iron Age.<ref name="Sidwell2015"/>

Paul Sidwell (2018)<ref>Sidwell, Paul. 2018. ''Austroasiatic deep chronology and the problem of cultural lexicon''. Paper presented at the 28th Annual Meeting of the Southeast Asian Linguistics Society, held 17–19 May 2018 in Kaohsiung, Taiwan.</ref> considers the Austroasiatic language family to have rapidly diversified around 4,000 years B.P. during the arrival of rice agriculture in Indochina, but notes that the origin of Proto-Austroasiatic itself is older than that date. The lexicon of Proto-Austroasiatic can be divided into an early and late stratum. The early stratum consists of basic lexicon including body parts, animal names, natural features, and pronouns, while the names of cultural items (agriculture terms and words for cultural artifacts, which are reconstructible in Proto-Austroasiatic) form part of the later stratum.

[[Roger Blench]] (2017)<ref name="Blench2017">Blench, Roger. 2017. ''[http://southasiabibliography.de/uploads/Blench.pdf Waterworld: lexical evidence for aquatic subsistence strategies in Austroasiatic] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171214014949/http://southasiabibliography.de/uploads/Blench.pdf |date=14 December 2017 }}''. Presented at ICAAL 7, Kiel, Germany.</ref> suggests that vocabulary related to aquatic subsistence strategies (such as boats, waterways, river fauna, and fish capture techniques) can be reconstructed for Proto-Austroasiatic. Blench (2017) finds widespread Austroasiatic roots for 'river, valley', 'boat', 'fish', 'catfish sp.', 'eel', 'prawn', 'shrimp' (Central Austroasiatic), 'crab', 'tortoise', 'turtle', 'otter', 'crocodile', 'heron, fishing bird', and 'fish trap'. Archaeological evidence for the presence of agriculture in northern [[Indochina]] (northern Vietnam, Laos, and other nearby areas) dates back to only about 4,000 years ago (2,000 BC), with agriculture ultimately being introduced from further up to the north in the Yangtze valley where it has been dated to 6,000 B.P.<ref name="Blench2017"/>

Sidwell (2022)<ref name="Sidwell JSEALS Special 8">{{cite journal|last=Sidwell|first=Paul|title=Austroasiatic Dispersal: the AA "Water-World" Extended|editor-last=Alves|editor-first=Mark|editor-last2=Sidwell|editor-first2=Paul|journal=Journal of the Southeast Asian Linguistics Society: Papers from the 30th Conference of the Southeast Asian Linguistics Society (2021)|volume=15|issue=3|date=28 January 2022|issn=1836-6821|url=https://evols.library.manoa.hawaii.edu/handle/10524/52498|access-date=14 February 2022|doi=10.5281/zenodo.5773247|pages=95–111|archive-date=30 January 2022|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220130075639/https://evols.library.manoa.hawaii.edu/handle/10524/52498|url-status=live}}</ref><ref name="Sidwell2021">Sidwell, Paul. 2021. [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1GSfNDgaDM_lzWrQxZ5w-Tas8aVKfT-Sj/view ''Austroasiatic Dispersal: the AA "Water-World" Extended''] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220217053955/https://drive.google.com/file/d/1GSfNDgaDM_lzWrQxZ5w-Tas8aVKfT-Sj/view |date=17 February 2022 }}. [https://sites.google.com/site/sealsjournal/seals-and-jseals-history/seals-online-2021/seals-2021-program SEALS 2021] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211216175236/https://sites.google.com/site/sealsjournal/seals-and-jseals-history/seals-online-2021/seals-2021-program |date=16 December 2021 }}. ([https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QREB1UttWTI Video)] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220217063156/https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QREB1UttWTI |date=17 February 2022 }}</ref> proposes that the locus of Proto-Austroasiatic was in the [[Red River Delta]] area about 4,000-4,500 years before present, instead of the Middle Mekong as he had previously proposed. Austroasiatic dispersed coastal maritime routes and also upstream through river valleys. Khmuic, Palaungic, and Khasic resulted from a westward dispersal that ultimately came from the Red River valley. Based on their current distributions, about half of all Austroasiatic branches (including Nicobaric and Munda) can be traced to coastal maritime dispersals.

Hence, this points to a relatively late riverine dispersal of Austroasiatic as compared to [[Sino-Tibetan languages|Sino-Tibetan]], whose speakers had a distinct non-riverine culture. In addition to living an aquatic-based lifestyle, early Austroasiatic speakers would have also had access to livestock, crops, and newer types of watercraft. As early Austroasiatic speakers dispersed rapidly via waterways, they would have encountered speakers of older language families who were already settled in the area, such as Sino-Tibetan.<ref name="Blench2017"/>