Part of
Language Dispersal Beyond FarmingEdited by Martine Robbeets and Alexander Savelyev
[Not in series 215] 2017
► pp. ix–x
Edited by Martine Robbeets and Alexander Savelyev
[Not in series 215] 2017
► pp. ix–x
List of figures
Chapter 1
Figure 1.Distribution of the homelands proposed in this volume
Figure 2.Range of time depths estimated for the language families discussed in our volume
Figure 3.A continuum-distribution for agricultural lexicon discussed in this volume
Chapter 2
Figure 1.Simplified history of the Quechuan and Aymaran lineages
Chapter 3
Figure 1.Late Prehistoric population movements, ca. 1000–400 BP
Chapter 5
Figure 1.The Transeurasian languages (generated with WALS tools)
Figure 2.The ethnic groups of prehistorical Manchuria in the first millennium BC according to Janhunen (1996: 216)
Figure 3.Densi Tree of the Transeurasian family (Robbeets & Bouckaert forthc.)
Figure 4.The Xinglongwa culture and the establishment of millet agriculture
Figure 5.The Hongshan culture and the eastward spread of millet agriculture
Figure 6.The Yayoi culture and the integration of rice and millet agriculture
Figure 7.Mapping the agricultural development in Northeast Asia on the language tree of Transeurasian
Chapter 7
Figure 1.Papuan language families (shaded)
Figure 2.Posited Trans-New Guinea language families (after Ross 2005)
Figure 3.Posited homeland and direction of Trans-New Guinea expansions
Chapter 8
Figure 1.The relative position of early Hmong-Mien (Miáo-Yáo) tribes and early Kradai (T’ai) tribes (reproduced from Forrest 1948: 129)
Figure 2.The geographical distribution of Austroasiatic language communities
Figure 3.The family tree of Austroasiatic (Diffloth 2012). Unlike the Khasi-Aslian branch, the internal phylogeny of the Munda branch has not been established
Figure 4.The geographical ranges for the possible domestication of (A) ghaiyā or upland rice, (B) wet indica rice and (C) the japonica cultivar (adapted from Londo et al. 2006)
Figure 5.The region of overlap of the geographical ranges of megafaunal species for which Proto-Austroasiatic etyma are reconstructible
Figure 6.The 2012 Benares recension of Stanley Starosta’s 2001 Périgueux East Asian linguistic phylum (Starosta 2005, van Driem 2014b).
Figure 7.After the last glacial maximum, the Y chromosomal haplogroup O (M175) split into the subclades O1 (F265, M1354) and O2 (M122).
Figure 8.A male-biased linguistic intrusion introduced both Austroasiatic language and a paternal lineage, haplogroup O1b1a1a (M95), into the indigenous population of the Choṭā Nāgpur
Figure 9.Branching of the paternal lineage O into new subclades.
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives (CC BY-NC-ND) 4.0 license.
For any use beyond this license, please contact the publisher at [email protected].
