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

 498  George van Driem   Himalayan linguistic diversity appears to reflect the spread of the paternal O3a3c (M134) lineage putatively associated with this linguistic dispersal. Correlations between linguistic, archaeology and genetics must inform a chronologically layered view of ethnolinguistic prehistory [Bellwood et al . 2011; van Driem 2011b]. Any attempt to span great stretches of time must distinguish numerous chronological layers. The post-glacial movements to the north and east that gave rise to the Trans-Himalayan, Austroasiatic, Hmong-Mien and Austronesian linguistic phyla took place long before the northeasterly spread of ancient Tibeto-Burmans to the putative early locus of Sino-Bodic. A distinct process was the incremental spread of diverse ancient Trans-Himalayan groups throughout the Himalayas, where linguistic and ge- netic evidence indicates the presence of pre-Tibeto-Burman populations. More recent than this was the southward spread of Sino-Bodic that brought Sino-Bodic groups into contact with the ancient Hmong-Mien, early Austroasiatics, Austronesians and with other Tibeto-Burman groups. More recent yet was the Bodic spread across the Tibetan plateau spilling over into the Himalayas, as evinced by the distribution of Bodish, East Bodish, Taman- gic, West Himalayish and several other groups. The spread of Tibeto-Burman groups from Yúnnán into Southeast Asia, e. g. Karen, Pyu and later Lolo- Burmese, constitutes such a recent episode that parts of these movements are historically attested. Also historically documented is the Hàn spread, well reflected in linguistics and genetics, which assimilated both other Tibeto- Burman communities as well as non-Tibeto-Burman groups. The historically documented spread of Tibetic (i. e. Bodish) across the Tibetan plateau is even more recent. The relative frequencies of the Y chromosomal haplogroup O2a (M95) in various Tibeto-Burman populations of the Indian subcontinent [Sahoo et al . 2006; Reddy et al . 2007] suggest that a subset of the paternal ancestors of particular Tibeto-Burman populations in northeastern India, e. g. certain Bodo-Koch communities, may originally have been Austroasiatic speakers who married into Tibeto-Burman communities or were linguistically assimi- lated by ancient Tibeto-Burmans. At the same time, median-joining network analyses of haplogroup O2a (M95) microsatellites have suggested a division in the Indian subcontinent between Tibeto-Burmans vs. Austroasiatic and Dravidian language communities. Austroasiatics and Dravidians show greater Y chromosomal microsatellite diversification than Tibeto-Burman language communities, and the highest frequency of the O2a haplogroup is found in tribal populations in Orissa, Chattisgarh and Jharkhand [Sengupta et al . 2006]. At a shallower time depth, ancient mitochondrial DNA recovered in northeastern Thailand at the Bronze Age site Noen U-loke, dating from 1500