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

 509  The Eastern Himalayan Corridor in Prehistory   ternatives especially in those cases where the linguistic picture suggests a radically different view of prehistory than does the spread of material culture as reflected in the known archaeological record. The introduction of Proto- Sinitic to the Yellow River basin may have been likewise inspired. The Centripetal Migration model was named to contrast with the cen- trifugal reasoning of the Farming Language Dispersal proponents. In fact, ancient population movements may have unfolded both in centrifugal and centripetal directions with respect to centres of technologically advanced and later urban civilisations. The Centripetal Migration model acknowledges that the motives for migrations were diverse and that no model as simple as the Farming Language Dispersal theory could therefore account for all linguistic intrusions, even at the time of the Neolithic horizon. With reference to Forster and Renfrew’s wilful interpretation of the Y chromosomal haplogroup J2, I previously argued in the context of the In- dian subcontinent that ‘the J2 haplogroup… appears to emanate from the Arabian Peninsula and, unlike haplogroups N and R1a, attains no high fre- quency in Ceylon’ and ‘probably reflects the historically attested male-borne eastward spread of Islam’ and the ancient maritime trade across the Arabian Sea, whereas Y chromosomal haplogroups of the R subclades spread to the Subcontinent ‘from the northwest along with Indo-Aryan language across northern India and to Ceylon’ [van Driem 2007: 5]. The spread of various Y chromosomal R subclades is likely to be linked to the dispersal of Indo- European from an original homeland in the Pontic-Caspian steppe, whilst the current geographical distribution of the Y chromosomal lineage L provides the likeliest candidate for a vestige of an earlier patrilingual dispersal of Ela- mo-Dravidian emanating from a region which encompassed the Bactria and Margiana of later prehistory. Contrary to both the Pontic Caspian and Asia Minor homeland theories, the presence of the ancestral clade R* in Indian populations could be con- strued as evidence for the hypothesis of an ultimate Indian homeland for Indo-European. This hypothesis exists in two versions. The old myth of all Indo-European languages deriving from Sanskrit originated with Sir William Jones’ garbled understanding of the Scythian linguistic theory. Consequently, this idea is, naturally enough, not countenanced in the scholarly literature today. 1 Another more sophisticated version of the hypothesis, however is that 1 In 1647, the Scythian linguistic phylum outlined by Marcus van Boxhorn encompassed Latin, Greek, Germanic, Baltic, Slavic, Celtic, Indo-Iranian, including Sanskrit. In 1647, the Scythian language family did not yet contain Albanian, which Rasmus Rask first sug- gested was Indo-European at the beginning of the 19th century. Albanian was only dem- onstrated to be Indo-European in 1835 by Joseph Ritter von Xylander. In 1647, Scythian