Проблемы китайского и общего языкознания. К 90-летию С. Е. Яхонтова

 494  George van Driem   gument and without any claim to geographical precision. Whereas the haplo- group O1 (M119) moved to the drainage of the Pearl River and its tributaries in what today is Guǎngdōng, the bearers of haplogroup O2 (M268) moved to southern Yúnnán, whilst bearers of the O3 (M122) haplogroup remained in the southeastern Himalayas, expanding their range initially only into ad- jacent parts of northeastern India and northern Burma (Figure 17). The O2 (M268) clade split into O2a (M95) and O2b (M176), an event which took place just before the linguistic event horizon. Asian rice, perhaps both japonica and indica rice, may have first been do- mesticated roughly in the area hypothetically imputed to O2 (M268), which would have included southern Yúnnán [van Driem 2011a, 2012a] (Figure 18). The bearers of the subclade O2a (M95) became the Stammväter of the Aus- troasiatics [van Driem 2007; Chaubey et al . 2010]. The Austroasiatics spread from this locus initially to the Salween drainage in northeastern Burma and to the area that today is northern Thailand and western Laos. In time, the Aus- troasiatics would spread as far as the Mekong delta, the Malay peninsula, the Nicobars and later even into eastern India, where they would introduce both their language and their paternal lineage to indigenous peoples of the subcon- tinent (Figure 19). Despite its prevalence in Munda populations, the topology of haplogroup O2a does not support a South Asian origin for this paternal lineage [Kumar et al . 2007; Chaubey 2010; Chaubey et al . 2010]. Again the mitochondrial background is of greater antiquity, and the paternal lineage ap- pears to be the signature for the spread of the language phylum and its adop- tion by resident populations [Thangaraj et al . 2006a; Kumar et al . 2006] Since we have associated the paternal lineage O2a (M95), which is a de- rivative clade of haplogroup O2 (M268), with the Austroasiatic language phy- lum, we might conjecture that Asian rice, perhaps both japonica and indica rice, was first domesticated roughly in the general area hypothetically imputed to O2 (M268) here 1 . Whilst the bearers of the O2a (M95) haplogroup became the Stammväter of the Austroasiatics, the other derivative paternal subclade O2b (M176) spread eastward, where they introduced rice agriculture to the 1 [Ferlus 1996] proposed that one of the prominent Proto-Austroasiatic etyma for rice originally denoted taro, but this argument is refuted by [Diffloth 2011], who shows that the two cultigens are reconstructible to separate roots which have been consistently distin- guished throughout linguistically reconstructible Austroasiatic prehistory. The domestica- tion of taro [Rao et al . 2010] is as important to understanding Austroasiatic prehistory as rice. Despite attempts by [Bradley 2012; Blench’s 2009] claim still holds true that no rice agricultural terminology can be confidently reconstructed for Tibeto-Burman. As has long widely been presumed, the ancient Tibeto-Burmans probably first cultivated not rice, but foxtail millet Setaria italica and broomcorn millet Panicum mileaceum .